2019 Chevrolet Silverado Photographed During Cold Weather Testing

[mookdoc6]

 

 

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

 

 

Exactly!

[mookdoc6]

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]

 

 

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.

[pickmeup]

Yes but the Ford boys are blindingly in love with the v-6 with twin hair dryers .

[WilliamBos]

 

 

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]

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]

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?

[Back in a Bowtie]

im a big fan of the integrated exhaust. I hope its something that makes it to production and then can be swapped onto my 2014 lol

[WilliamBos]

 

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]

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]

 

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]

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]

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]

 

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]

 

 

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.