Jump to content

2019 Chevrolet Silverado Photographed During Cold Weather Testing

Zane

By Zane
in Article & Review Archive (Pre-2019)

Recommended Posts

mookdoc6 Senior Enthusiast

mookdoc6

Posted
Posted

 

 

I hope the biggest gimmick stays out...Small Displacement Turbocharged Engines...

 

 

Exactly!

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply
mookdoc6 Senior Enthusiast

mookdoc6

Posted
Posted

AFM hardly does anything for fuel mileage. It's a joke. Nothing like trying to make a 3 ton brick fuel efficient.

 

 

If you want your beloved NA 8cly you better be Happy about AFM! Don't worry it's even more advanced now and complete control of every cylinder...with an easy 1-2 MPG gain!

Thomcat Senior Enthusiast

Thomcat

Posted
Posted

 

 

I hope the biggest gimmick stays out...Small Displacement Turbocharged Engines...

Just a matter of time. I always went by the old adage "There's no substitute for cubes"....until I bought the '16 Malibu with the 2.0T motorcycle sized engine. Its dual scroll turbo with intercooler doesn't even exhibit a turbo lag. Downside is the gimmicked featherweight engine has to rev its poor heart out to move an equally featherweight vehicle - the only reason I chanced the buy was because the dealer threw in a lifetime drivetrain warranty which includes all parts and labor fully covering the turbo. But the performance of my Impala which is not much heavier has the 3.6 proves the point.....no substitute for cubes.

 

But there is no way these itsy-bitsy gimmicked high revving engines belong in a heavy vehicle, even less in one required to haul loads or subject to sustained stress. These spinners were designed for lightweight front drive vehicles with drivetrain components all rotating in the same plane.....no way they will stand up to this usage or maintain the same overall power to weight ratio once the output is passed through a few U joint angles and through rotational direction changes passing through a transfer case and rear differential. Will they try? Yes, and with much promotion and fanfare like their Caddy 4/6/8, Olds diesel and Chevy Vega 4 .......and those unfortunate enough to fall for it will likely suffer the same consequences.

WilliamBos Senior Enthusiast

WilliamBos

Posted
Posted

 

 

If you want your beloved NA 8cly you better be Happy about AFM! Don't worry it's even more advanced now and complete control of every cylinder...with an easy 1-2 MPG gain!

AFM is a joke, and not needed. These engines deliver excellent fuel economy without it. The AFM sacrifices long term reliability, and for those of us that put on 200,000+ miles long term reliability trumps gimmicky AFM/EPS.

 

Toyota does not use it for that reason, nor does Nissan. In fact, the new Tundra is more a truck than the 1500 series GMC/Chev. You get 4:30 gearing with the 5.7, no AFM and no gimmicky EPS either.

 

GM/Ford HD trucks do not use either.

 

If 1-2MPG bothers you that much, than a fullsize truck is not for you.

 

If I can't find a 2500HD 6.0 gas that suits my budget, I will get a Tundra 5.7 next.

pickmeup Enthusiast

pickmeup

Posted
Posted

What we have here is a ford ''test mule'' being put thru some testing by GM employees. They are all too embarrassed to be seen driving ford so they had to disguise it.

mookdoc6 Senior Enthusiast

mookdoc6

Posted
Posted

AFM is a joke, and not needed. These engines deliver excellent fuel economy without it. The AFM sacrifices long term reliability, and for those of us that put on 200,000+ miles long term reliability trumps gimmicky AFM/EPS.

 

Toyota does not use it for that reason, nor does Nissan. In fact, the new Tundra is more a truck than the 1500 series GMC/Chev. You get 4:30 gearing with the 5.7, no AFM and no gimmicky EPS either.

 

GM/Ford HD trucks do not use either.

 

If 1-2MPG bothers you that much, than a fullsize truck is not for you.

 

If I can't find a 2500HD 6.0 gas that suits my budget, I will get a Tundra 5.7 next.

 

There is no mention of 1-2 MPG's bothering me at all actually? The fact of the matter is GM is not turning it's back on "AFM" How about a 3.5 ecoboost for your gimmicky taste if you can't find the last of the VORTEC 6.0's........Damn good engine I might add.

 

As for "EPS" yeah....if anything that has long term reliability written all over it and will never go back....sounds like you need a 6.6 Dmax to get you away from all the gimmicky stuff......Oh...wait the DMAX has.............Digital Steering assist! Still a Circulating Ball but adds..........additional valve and control module that provides added boost and support when and where the driver most needs it.

 

Sounds pretty Gimmicky to me?

WilliamBos Senior Enthusiast

WilliamBos

Posted
Posted

 

There is no mention of 1-2 MPG's bothering me at all actually? The fact of the matter is GM is not turning it's back on "AFM" How about a 3.5 ecoboost for your gimmicky taste if you can't find the last of the VORTEC 6.0's........Damn good engine I might add.

 

As for "EPS" yeah....if anything that has long term reliability written all over it and will never go back....sounds like you need a 6.6 Dmax to get you away from all the gimmicky stuff......Oh...wait the DMAX has.............Digital Steering assist! Still a Circulating Ball but adds..........additional valve and control module that provides added boost and support when and where the driver most needs it.

 

Sounds pretty Gimmicky to me?

The ecoboosts are a flop. Ford has quietly lowered the MPG ratings in all literature because they were caught in their lie.

 

No, the last good duramax was the LBZ - the rest is pure unreliable EPA garbage.

 

Next truck will be a Toyota, no real need for an HD, less gimmicks, more truck. Something the Japanese have always understood - LONG TERM RELIABILITY. Not expensive post warranty headaches.

'01LS1 Senior Enthusiast

'01LS1

Posted
Posted

AFM is a joke, and not needed. These engines deliver excellent fuel economy without it. The AFM sacrifices long term reliability, and for those of us that put on 200,000+ miles long term reliability trumps gimmicky AFM/EPS.

 

Toyota does not use it for that reason, nor does Nissan. In fact, the new Tundra is more a truck than the 1500 series GMC/Chev. You get 4:30 gearing with the 5.7, no AFM and no gimmicky EPS either.

 

GM/Ford HD trucks do not use either.

 

If 1-2MPG bothers you that much, than a fullsize truck is not for you.

 

If I can't find a 2500HD 6.0 gas that suits my budget, I will get a Tundra 5.7 next.

 

If Toyota sold the volume of trucks that GM/Ford/Fiat currently do, they would be forced to address the Tundras EPA rated mpg to offset the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards.

Sales for 2016. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2017/02/going-deeper-2016-full-size-pickup-sales-analysis.html

WilliamBos Senior Enthusiast

WilliamBos

Posted
Posted

 

If Toyota sold the volume of trucks that GM/Ford/Fiat currently do, they would be forced to address the Tundras EPA rated mpg to offset the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards.

Sales for 2016. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2017/02/going-deeper-2016-full-size-pickup-sales-analysis.html

They are only 20,000 behind GMC - where Toyota gains is their car line up, more efficient than GM. If you removed it, the difference would not be noticeable.

 

The AFM was not mandated by the EPA, just another gimmick. The 5.0 Coyote does not use it, no need for it.

Back in a Bowtie Enthusiast

Back in a Bowtie

Posted
Posted

Next truck will be a Toyota, no real need for an HD, less gimmicks, more truck. Something the Japanese have always understood - LONG TERM RELIABILITY. Not expensive post warranty headaches.

I like the tundra but can't get a 6.5 bed on a crew cab. At least not on the TRD pro. Im hoping the new gm truck is a game changer.

'01LS1 Senior Enthusiast

'01LS1

Posted
Posted

They are only 20,000 behind GMC - where Toyota gains is their car line up, more efficient than GM. If you removed it, the difference would not be noticeable.

 

The AFM was not mandated by the EPA, just another gimmick. The 5.0 Coyote does not use it, no need for it.

 

GMC would fall under GM CAFE standards, not singled out.

 

Toyota definitely gains via their car market share from Prius through Camry in mpg. That is my point, if they tilted their co mpg avg by increasing trucks sales an additional 300,000

units annually. They would have to take some steps to offset the numbers. Toyota also offers hybrid variants throughout their car/small cuv line up to continually improve their overall CAFE footprint.

 

AFM (&MDS on Fiat) were steps toward Gov CAFE standards as is ecoboost that Ford purchased. Gov does not care how they get there, so long as their line ups meet overall fuel mileage regulations.

Have not seen current break down of sales numbers for Ford, but guessing the Coyote 5.0 is not the lion share of F150 sales. If some sort of mandate had not

been put in place via Gov regulation they would have no need to risk the eco boost motors when they could build simple V8's across the board.

 

More about CAFE standards, tho is dated info. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature

ChevyMan2015 Enthusiast

ChevyMan2015

Posted
Posted

 

GMC would fall under GM CAFE standards, not singled out.

 

Toyota definitely gains via their car market share from Prius through Camry in mpg. That is my point, if they tilted their co mpg avg by increasing trucks sales an additional 300,000

units annually. They would have to take some steps to offset the numbers. Toyota also offers hybrid variants throughout their car/small cuv line up to continually improve their overall CAFE footprint.

 

AFM (&MDS on Fiat) were steps toward Gov CAFE standards as is ecoboost that Ford purchased. Gov does not care how they get there, so long as their line ups meet overall fuel mileage regulations.

Have not seen current break down of sales numbers for Ford, but guessing the Coyote 5.0 is not the lion share of F150 sales. If some sort of mandate had not

been put in place via Gov regulation they would have no need to risk the eco boost motors when they could build simple V8's across the board.

 

More about CAFE standards, tho is dated info. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature

 

 

It makes no sense to me. Toyota can do all they do with their cars in MPG, but their trucks have the worst. They would sell more trucks if the got MPG that was like Ford, Dodge, and GM.

WilliamBos Senior Enthusiast

WilliamBos

Posted
Posted

 

 

It makes no sense to me. Toyota can do all they do with their cars in MPG, but their trucks have the worst. They would sell more trucks if the got MPG that was like Ford, Dodge, and GM.

If GM offered 4:30 gears in their 1500, they would probably do worse than Toyota. There was a towing test done with 5,000 pounds between a Chev 1500 and a Tundra, all the gimmicks only got 2 mpg better loaded , with less Power - 5.3 vs 5.7.

 

 

 

Extra cost, extra issues once the PCV system plugs up with oil. How many 300,000 mile AFM trucks are on the road that have never been apart? I know of many oil drinking AFM trucks. No thanks.

 

Add a Twin Turbo 3.6 to the line up, and make the 6.2 a NON AFM engine.

 

Toyota builds a beefier truck than the 1500. Bigger rear diff, 4:30 gears for the 5.7 and that engine can be had in any trim level. It is built to tow and work.

 

3:08 have no business in a truck, but for that matter 3:42 are near pathetic too - 3:73 should be the minimum.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • tararebecca
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By tararebecca · Posted

      I agree, simplicity and reliability matter more as vehicles get more complicated. A V8 work truck option with fewer electronic features and a stronger warranty would definitely appeal to a lot of buyers who use their trucks for real work. Customizing it with trusted outfitters is often the best way to get exactly what you need.webcrimsNY
    • artistemorbidity
      2026 Sierra 1500 Denali - Sound upgrade?

      By artistemorbidity · Posted

      I’ve heard similar complaints from newer vehicles where the factory “premium” systems don’t always live up to expectations. A good installer should be able to improve the sound without turning it into a bass-heavy setup. I’d look into upgrading the front speakers, adding a quality DSP amplifier, and possibly improving sound deadening first—those changes usually make a much bigger difference than just adding a subwoofer. Hopefully someone local can recommend a reputable installer in the Las Vegas/St. George area.
    • Grumpy Bear
      The Peckish Synapse

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Do you remember that Harley Davidson was more successful (solvent) when it produced about 60% of the market demand (by design) and forced wait times of up to three years? Even when your turn came around it was, "Take what we are giving you or move to the back of the line and start over". HUGE markup's were 'normalized' and dealer killed. 40% markup and no floor plan? What's not to love? Greed will kill them yet. They have surplus production and customer base is tanking. And still they think nosebleed pricing will work.  
    • newdude
      Me too……..

      By newdude · Posted

      The engine was done as part of the 6.2 recall?   You'd have to see if your VIN also has the 6.2 engine special coverage on it.  Coverage number is N252494003.  If you have this, your engine is covered under this and NOT the GM replacement part engine warranty which is 3yr/100k from the date of install.  The 3yr/100k mi warranty is in effect for non warranty purchases.     This is not any different if it was replaced under warranty without a recall or special coverage.  So if you had a 5.3 and it popped at 3 years in at 50,000mi during the 5yr/60k powertrain, the replacement engine would not get the 3yr/100k, and instead gets the remainder of the 5yr/60k as coverage.     So N252494003 gives 10 years or 150,000mi of coverage, which ever comes first, starting at the vehicle in service date.  So if your in service date is 01/01/2022, N252494003 gives you special coverage of the engine until 01/01/2032 or 150,000mi, whichever comes first.  So if your start date was 01/01/2022, you'd have left 5 years and 4 months (lets round to august 1st), or 62,000mi left of coverage.   So you need to know your in service date to know how much coverage is left.  
    • CamGTP
      Injector update

      By CamGTP · Posted

      Okiee dokie there bud, way to take things to the extreme.   I guess you missed the whole point and take things way to serious. I installed different EV6 style injectors that just so happen to be larger in my car running the same LQ4 engine and with a better spray pattern than the stock style injectors and I noticed no difference in the idle quality. Kinda was my round about way of saying that even if you put the same size but better style injectors in your truck, you will likely see the same thing.    I'm sure you're great to have conversations with in person if that's how you act through a keyboard. One little things sets you off and now I guess my dick is all up in your face.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...