Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5afeccc0cf7d1_2019-5-3L-V8-DFM-VVT-DIL84-SLV-RF-S-NC-HiRLev12.thumb.jpg.455ec638c222be190ccca5d7b78c514a.jpg

Zane Merva

Executive Editor, GM-Trucks.com

6/29/2018

 

Even with an all new dynamic fuel management system, the 2019 Silverado equipped with a 5.3L or 6.2L engine won't see any better fuel economy then their 2018 predecessor. 

 

Today Chevrolet released more information on what the 2019 Silverado will cost and what fuel economy we'll see. Here's the new chart..

 

2019 CHEVROLET SILVERADO CAPABILITIES

 

4.3L V-6
w/AFM (6-spd.)

5.3L V-8 w/AFM (6-spd.)

2.7L I-4 Turbo w/AFM (8-spd.) 

5.3L V-8 w/DFM (8-spd.)

6.2L V-8 w/DFM (10-spd.)

3.0L I-6 Turbo-Diesel  (10-spd.)

Horsepower

285

355

 310

355

420

TBA

Torque

305

383

348

383

460

TBA

Max towing

8,000

11,000

7,200

11,600

12,200

TBA

Max payload

2,500

2,430

2,280

2,190

2,100

TBA

EPA-estimates (city/hwy/comb)

N/A

N/A

N/A

17/23/19

16/20/17

N/A

 

 

From these official figures, a 2019 Silverado with the 5.3L is rated 17 MPG City , 23 MPG Highway and 19 MPG Combined. The 2019 6.2L is rated at 16 MPG City, 20 MPG Highway, and 17 MPG Combined. Chevy does not specificy if these numbers are for 2 or 4 wheel drive, so we can only guess. If it's 2WD, then the 5.3L gains 1MPG in the City but stays flat in the Highway and Combined ratings compared to 2018 figures. The 6.2L also gains 1MPG in the city but loses 1MPG in the Highway rating. The Combined rating stays flat. 

 

So, where is the big benefit to DFM? Is GM's new fancy technology going to wow in real world driving or just with fancy words?  We'll find out soon when we take delivery of our 2019 Long Term Silverado LTZ in a few weeks. 

 

See Also:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thump    goes the ball GM just dropped... You reduce the weight of the truck and still can't improve the fuel millage??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these GM numbers or EPA?  GM low balls their Fuel Economy numbers always has......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mookdoc6 said:

Are these GM numbers or EPA?  GM low balls their Fuel Economy numbers always has......

The post says EPA estimates, so I would say its EPA...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sterling Hess said:

The post says EPA estimates, so I would say its EPA...

 

EPA-Estimates?  Are you pregnant or not?  I been around long-time....This is GM Low balled prior EPA announced numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They reduced the vehicle weight, improved the aerodynamics of the vehicle and DFM tech on the engine, 10sp transmission and fuel economy stays the same.  What is the point?  One would think MPG would at least improve by 3 numbers each.  

Edited by Black02Silverado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mookdoc6 said:

EPA-Estimates?  Are you pregnant or not?  I been around long-time....This is GM Low balled prior EPA announced numbers

April 2013, GM released MPG numbers of the 2014 Silverado. http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/silverado/2014.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Apr/0401-silverado.html

16 city, 19 comb. 23 highway (2wd)

 

Then if you look at the current rating for the 2014, https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2014_Chevrolet_Silverado.shtml

 

it is exactly the same, 16/19/23. So I dunno what you are talking about "low balling EPA numbers".

Real world mpgs may differ, but the EPA rating is what was announced. We don't know if it is 2x4 or 4x4, but my guess it it is 2x4 and it hasn't improved from the 2014 generation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These figures are surprising however, the maximum gains for these engines was probably achieved in 2014.  To tweak another 1 mpg city is still an improvement.  The fuel savings the public is looking for will probably be found in one of the new engines.  I'm interested in seeing if these new engines achieve mpg's in a range that will challenge the sales of the old V8's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 23 on the Hwy at 72 MPH with the 342 gear WITHOUT the cylinder deactivation. One time I got 24 MPG going south on 75 towards Orlando. Early in 14 when the 5.3 redesign was new there were lots of fuel mileage topics. They pretty much settled around 23-24 mpg on the Highway. Can’t imagine the small block combo doing much better without weight reduction or drag reduction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm puzzled...weight loss over the K2, no HP change, almost a wash in MPG?  What gives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may just trade my 16 on an 18 as they will most likely be the most issue free truck of this body run..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Gee, yet another, even more complicated, Active Fuel Management-type system to cause no end of mechanical problems.  And it doesn't even get any better fuel mileage than the outgoing system?  EPIC FAIL, GM!  

 

PS  Those of us GMT-900 owners who had to turn off AFM didn't notice any significant fuel mileage drop, either.  

Edited by MaverickZ71
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm averaging 24.9 mpg over the life of my truck, but usually I average 26 mpg over the course of my work week. The weekends are what's kills me...the short trips, the stop and go weekend traffic.

 

With the new system the activation of the system is what's supposed to be "improved", only because of it's new delivery/activation. It's ability to make it less noticeable and smooth. I don't think they intended or expected to get improvement in overall fuel economy. In talking with dealers - not that I trust them - they say the problem isn't reliability, it's people complaining about activation and how harsh it is when they're towing. I personal,y don't notice it 90% of the time in my 2018. Then again I'm only at 7,500 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought for sure we’d see a more significant bump...maybe 2mpgs, so this is a little unexpected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an 18 with the 6.2 and the 8 sp. In averaging about 22 mpg per tank. I think even the EPA estimates are a little low. Just took a 200 mile trip and my best 50 mile was 26mpg. I live in illinois so it's mostly flat roads

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.