Fuel Economy For 5.3L & 6.2L With DFM Released

[Zane]

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:

 

 

[BigBadSierra]

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

[mookdoc6]

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

[Sterling Hess]

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...

 

[mookdoc6]

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

[Black02Silverado]

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 June 29, 2018 by Black02Silverado

[Sterling Hess]

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. 

[Donstar]

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.  

[KARNUT]

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

[newdude]

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

[BigBadSierra]

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

[MaverickZ71]

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 June 29, 2018 by MaverickZ71

[Doublebase]

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.

[Jchoi]

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

[Willborio]

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