Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Oh stop crying about it.  It still gets better fuel economy than Dodge, Crapota, Nissan, and probably Ford. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is a blessing in disguise.

 

Maybe GM tuned these trucks so that the transmission doesn’t lug the engine constantly in normal city driving. Maybe the DFM isn’t as aggressive as AFM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1 MPG in the city is a nice improvement. And, who knows, maybe the big improvement in fuel economy comes with hauling and towing.

With the AFM and towing it would stay in V8 mode all the time. But with the DFM the engine might be able to run on 6 cylinder on flat roads w/o much headwind. That's where my gain would be since I'm using my truck for what it is.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

Edited by j-ten-ner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have driven trucks for so long that MPG just doesn't matter to me anymore.

I'm more concerned with reliability.

If you get stranded in the winter and your freezing I doubt MPG is an issue.

Or sitting in the heat sweating and cursing, MPG is the farthest thing from your mind.

 

i want mechanical, electric and computer reliability.

Buying gas, replacing worn parts, changing fluids and tires is easy.

Heavy wrenching is what I want to avoid!!

Anything more than a water pump, starter and brakes is heavy wrenching to me.

 

:)

 

Edited by diyer2
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this tells me, if these numbers are true, is that GM isn't trying to stay competitive. Just like when they rehashed the HP/TQ numbers for the 4.3/5.3/6.2, people were annoyed by that as I am. There are some on the forum that state that that is just a number which is true to an extent but when the competition offer more powerful options with similar or better gearing in both the transmission and rear end, that makes me think that GM thinks of their customer base merely as sheep that will continue to throw money at them. One of the reasons I choose my Chevy over the Ford  is because I could not find an F-150 at the time with the V8 and I deemed the Ecoboost as too new to the market so I settled on the 5.3 Ecotec (wanted the 6.2). At the very least, drop the 6 speed for the 8 speed/4.3 and offer the 10 speed for as an option for the 5.3 and 2.7 along with a power bump for the motors that have been out for four years now to be more on par with the competition. Ford uses the same 10 speed with all of their engines with the exception of their base V6 as standard. Hopefully GM will be more competitive with the redesign of the midsize twins to combat the new Ranger. I know I am fairly new to the forums so I will state that I am not brand loyal so details like this all factor into my decision when I purchase a vehicle. If GM improved the drivability to the point of making its competition seem like a bunch of slugs, it'll be easier to ignore some of the details as that is the single, largest complaint on my 2014 Silverado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wayne3593 said:

What this tells me, if these numbers are true, is that GM isn't trying to stay competitive. Just like when they rehashed the HP/TQ numbers for the 4.3/5.3/6.2, people were annoyed by that as I am. There are some on the forum that state that that is just a number which is true to an extent but when the competition offer more powerful options with similar or better gearing in both the transmission and rear end, that makes me think that GM thinks of their customer base merely as sheep that will continue to throw money at them. One of the reasons I choose my Chevy over the Ford  is because I could not find an F-150 at the time with the V8 and I deemed the Ecoboost as too new to the market so I settled on the 5.3 Ecotec (wanted the 6.2). At the very least, drop the 6 speed for the 8 speed/4.3 and offer the 10 speed for as an option for the 5.3 and 2.7 along with a power bump for the motors that have been out for four years now to be more on par with the competition. Ford uses the same 10 speed with all of their engines with the exception of their base V6 as standard. Hopefully GM will be more competitive with the redesign of the midsize twins to combat the new Ranger. I know I am fairly new to the forums so I will state that I am not brand loyal so details like this all factor into my decision when I purchase a vehicle. If GM improved the drivability to the point of making its competition seem like a bunch of slugs, it'll be easier to ignore some of the details as that is the single, largest complaint on my 2014 Silverado.

I'm sure GM is looking at the marketing aspect to a point.  Those of us that look at HP/Torq, gearing and such are the minority.  The majority of the public out there purchase the truck because they just want a truck and they like the color and use it as a daily driver.  I know a bunch of individuals that have Denali CCSB's that love the truck and don't use it for anything other than daily use and groceries.  I see a ton of the pearl white, which is a nice expensive color choice but they don't care, they just like it and will pay to get it.  This is the individual that purchase the majority of the pickups on the road.  Brand loyalty and what is under the hood takes second fiddle. The bean counters at GM see this.

 

We can talk all about wanting more HP/Torq, better transmissions, "a Rapter killer" but in the end our little slice of truck purchases dosen't matter.  If it did, GM would be listening to the chatter on here and other GM forums and follow what we the minority want. That just isn't the money maker to them.

 

Just like trucks with short beds. What good are they?  I use my truck as a truck and need the 6.5' truck bed. I know of a bunch of individuals that would love to have a CC with an 8' bed but that isn't going to happen because again, we are the minority.  Ever try to get a bobcat bucket of mulch dumped into a short bed?  Yeah, half of it will be dumped on the ground because the bobcat bucket is 6', at least the places that I go to, to get mulch, gravel, sand are.

 

It also doesn't help us that the building industry finds it fit to build housing with small garages that you can't fit a full size pickup in.  If you even try the bumper is touching the front wall and the rear bumper is an inch away from the door when it closes and so you can't even get out of the truck to get into the house.

 

We can keep complaining until the cows come home but in the end it is all just a waste of breath and high blood pressure.

 

Kind of off topic but if GM did care they would be on here trying to help those with truck issues like us with a MyLink system that doesn't work as advertised since new but nothing seems to be getting done about it and it is going on 2 years.  MyLink has been out since what? 2013?  How long does it take to fix a "software" issue? They were kind enough to extend our warranty for the MyLink system only, to 2023 and 120k miles.  What good is that?  It tells me that they are not really working the problem, just putting a band aid on it to make us feel good. Extending the warranty doesn't fix the problem. The dealers hands are tied and it took us writing a "snail mail" letter to Corp GM to get any feedback.  I say pull a system out of another Suburban on the lot and put in mine and fix it. Make me a happy customer. Then just let the new but unusable MyLink Suburban sit on the lot until a fix comes available.  It would never happen but then why worry if a current customer is happy with their purchase or not, they already purchased the vehicle.

 

OK I got off on a rant, sorry guys!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, diyer2 said:

I have driven trucks for so long that MPG just doesn't matter to me anymore.

I'm more concerned with reliability.

If you get stranded in the winter and your freezing I doubt MPG is an issue.

Or sitting in the heat sweating and cursing, MPG is the farthest thing from your mind.

 

i want mechanical, electric and computer reliability.

Buying gas, replacing worn parts, changing fluids and tires is easy.

Heavy wrenching is what I want to avoid!!

Anything more than a water pump, starter and brakes is heavy wrenching to me.

 

:)

 

You bring up some good points, the reliability is a huge factor. I do care about fuel economy just because I drive so much, BUT when the situations occur that you mentioned?? Yeah fuel economy is the last thing on my mind. 

 

I guess thats what I like about commuting in a truck now - before I had a big sedan I commuted in - it was nice, it had power and it was comfy, but I always had a truck on the side to do the other things. Now I'm all truck, got rid of the sedan, but I expect the truck to act like a commuter, yet still be 100% truck when I need it. That's where I think GM hit the sweet spot. I seriously get 26 mpg with conservative commuting (right around what I was getting with my car), yet I also can haul stuff, throw stuff in the back, not have to worry when there's a foot of snow out there. But I don't want something that isn't reliable. I don't have a lot of patience for that stuff. We'll see how it goes with my 2018 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, Doublebase said:

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.

 

Agree 100%.  The improvements on paper are negligable.  But I think they’re end game was to improve the driving experience with their fuel management system, make it seem less invasive, smoother, and less noticeable while driving.

 

Only time will tell if that has been accomplished.

Edited by CMoore711
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2018 at 1:26 PM, Willborio said:

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

Agreed.  I was a little worried the 6.2 was going to get even less than I got with the 5.7 Hemi in the Grand Cherokee, but in actual driving, it does even better!  I've only calculated actual gas usage compared to miles with calculator once vs what the DIC says, and on that the DIC showed 4 tenths higher than what my math says.  I don't know how accurate the gas pump is in terms of what it says I put in the tank either, so I will consider it a wash.  I'll do it again as I get more miles on the truck to see how things compare.

 

On the trip home with the truck (2 hours across Ohio and Pennsylvania, some hills, some stop and go traffic here and there) The DIC showed 26.6 average.  Highest I ever got with the Jeep was 23.2 MPG.  I'm also curious how the truck is going to do with the race boat in tow.  On the Jeep, on highway I would get around 15.8 to 16.2ish.  I'll find out in August when I head to the next race.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been noticing like in the last year lots of people claiming mileage with the 6.2 that is better then the 5.3 and at times the 4.3. Funny thing is the EPA, Car and Driver, Motor Week, can’t match it. Wonder Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

I’ve been noticing like in the last year lots of people claiming mileage with the 6.2 that is better then the 5.3 and at times the 4.3. Funny thing is the EPA, Car and Driver, Motor Week, can’t match it. Wonder Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I couldn't tell you. But since I run premium I'm glad to see the higher mpg. Lol I do most of my driving at 60mph I live in a small town and drive to go anywhere. But little stop and go traffic. My last 2 400 mpg averages are at 21. Either i get lucky and always drive with the wind at my back or the EPA estimate is lower than real world averages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't tell you. But since I run premium I'm glad to see the higher mpg. Lol I do most of my driving at 60mph I live in a small town and drive to go anywhere. But little stop and go traffic. My last 2 400 mpg averages are at 21. Either i get lucky and always drive with the wind at my back or the EPA estimate is lower than real world averages. 

They probably have to drive 70 MPH for the HWY mileage, so 60 would do better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

I’ve been noticing like in the last year lots of people claiming mileage with the 6.2 that is better then the 5.3 and at times the 4.3. Funny thing is the EPA, Car and Driver, Motor Week, can’t match it. Wonder Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I traded my 18 slt with the 5.3 it had 3.42 gears and averaged 18. My 18 denali with 3.23 gears is definatly getting 2.5 to 3 mpg better 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KARNUT said:


They probably have to drive 70 MPH for the HWY mileage, so 60 would do better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed but my 26 was going to Chicago on i80 and i55. I never see less than 20 driving 70. Unless I'm on a hill or driving into the wind. My drive to work every day has 4 miles at 75 and 15 miles at 60. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yeah, my 2 hour mostly highway drive from Ohio to Pennsylvania at 73 to 74MPH, in variable rain and wind, showed 26.6 on the DIC. 

 

My daily work drive is 19 miles one way on a variable 40 to 55 MPH road with minimal hills and 2 longish hills (about mile long each) through two small towns (i.e. several red lights).  Each direction down one big hill and up the other.  I'm averaging between 19.5 and about 20.2 (it does better going to work than coming home because of the variances with the hills).  

 

I also know this:  With the Grand Cherokee I would put $35 of 87 octane in it on Monday morning and come Friday, I had to stop  and gas up again on the way home (which varied depending on any other driving after work as well).  With the truck, I'm putting in $40 of 93 octane (0.60 cents more per gallon) on Monday (when the gas gauge is at about the same level) and I go all week to work and through the weekend with extra driving and don't need gas again until Monday.  This jibes with the better mileage I'm seeing on the DIC than I got with the 5.7 Hemi in the Jeep.  Both vehicles are very close in terms of empty weight.

 

To be fair, I turned off eco mode in the Jeep (disables the AFM/DFM) as it shuddered too much, but is completely unnoticeable on the truck (which makes me happy), but in combined driving, the Jeep only switched into v4 mode on the flat 55 MPH section of road, if at all, the truck does it frequently and seamlessly.  I'm sure that helps, but I don't think it accounts totally for the much better mileage.

 

I haven't done any reading of EPA or car and driver reviews of the 6.2 mileage, so if they can't match what people are experiencing, I have no idea why.  I'll be honest, I was excited the truck I found had the 6.2 and is one of the main reasons I was willing to forego the midnight edition full black out that I originally wanted (couldn't find any on lots with the 6.2).  Also, I didn't read some of the fine details (and the dealership never mentioned) the 6.2 needs premium fuel.  I only discovered that after buying it. I was a little worried at first, but after driving it, I'm good with that.  So far on my normal driving routine I'm not really spending much, if any,  more on gas than I was on the Jeep, so all is well.  I did try half a tank of 87 in it (because the book doesn't state the 6.2 REQUIRES high octane, it just says RECOMMENDED and to watch for signs of detonation on lower rated fuel), and I didn't notice any difference at all on a work week drive, but since it is doing so well, I'm just going to keep putting premium in it.  I am absolutely thrilled with it at this point.

 

Most of my long distance drives at this point will be pulling my small race boat trailer (I race in APBA sanctioned stock and modified outboard category racing).  The boat hull is about 125lbs, the engine is 92lbs.  It's a small single axle trailer with an engine box on the rear (see attached pic) and some assorted other gear (tools, gas, etc), so it's not heavy, but that big box on the back is a major wind drag at 70MPH.  The Jeep got between 15.5 and 16.2 MPG pulling the trailer.  My next race is mid August, so we'll see how the truck does with that.

IMAG0081.jpg

Edited by EDL
  • Like 1

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


  • Similar Content

    • By Gorehamj

      John Goreham
      Contributing Writer, GM-Trucks.com
      12-12-2018
       
      Wards has named the General Motors 6.2-liter V8 engine with Dynamic Fuel Management (DFM) to its  2019 Wards 10 Best Engines Award list.
       
      “General Motors’ thundering 420-horsepower V-8 in the Silverado exemplifies how engineers continue to find ways to improve efficiency without giving up something in return. DFM determines 80 times per second exactly how many cylinders require fuel to meet power demands. And, incredibly, it uses as few as two cylinders to propel the full-size pickup down the highway,” says Wards' Senior Content Director Drew Winter. “The truly amazing part is the cylinder deactivation is imperceptible, so seamless that the only thing the driver notices is fewer stops at the pump."
       
       
      Coincidental to the award, GM-Trucks.com has just taken delivery of a long-term tester with this very engine. 
       
      “Chevrolet first introduced its Active Fuel Management cylinder deactivation system in 2005, and Dynamic Fuel Management is a natural progression of the technology,” said Jordan Lee, Small Block chief engineer. “Dynamic Fuel Management enables only the cylinders needed to deliver the power you want, seamlessly delivering the best balance of power and fuel economy.”
       
      The full list of Wards' 10 best engines is as follows:
      3.0L (B58) DOHC Turbocharged I-6 (BMW X5)
      6.2L OHV V-8 with DFM (Chevrolet Silverado)
      5.0L DOHC V-8 (Ford Mustang GT/Bullitt)
      3.0L DOHC TurboDiesel V-6 (Ford F-150)
      2.0L DOHC Atkinson i-VTEC 4-Cyl./HEV (Honda Accord Hybrid)
      120-kW Fuel Cell/Electric Propulsion System (Hyundai Nexo)
      150-kW Propulsion System (Hyundai Kona EV)
      2.0L DOHC VC-Turbo 4-Cyl. (Infiniti QX50)
      2.0L DOHC Atkinson 4-Cyl./HEV (Lexus UX 250h)
      3.6L DOHC Pentastar eTorque V-6 (Ram 1500)
       
       
       
    • By Sierra Dan
      2019 GMC Sierra Denali wins the 2019 Canadian Truck King Challenge 
       
       
    • By tenminutes
      ITEM PRICE:  $1,500
      ITEM LOCATION FOR PICK UP: Dallas Texas
      NOTE ABOUT SHIPPING: If you cover the cost, I'm happy to make sure they are to the shipping provider and protected. USHIP.com quotes will be $100-250 depending on where you live.
      CONTACT INFO: Text message is best (anytime) 512-944-0307

      I'm selling my Full Set of Factory OEM Chevrolet wheels pulled off a 2016 Tahoe LTZ. The tires are Nitto Terra Grappler G2 size 305/45r22 and have 50% tread left. I had to pull the Tire Pressure sensors out for a new set so they do not have them inside the tire. I have both GMC or Chevrolet caps. Buyer's choice of either option. Please let me know if you have any questions, will not last long at this price.

      Details on wheels Below: 22" 22in 04-17 NEW Chevrolet Silverado Tahoe Suburban OEM WHEELS SET 4 5696

      22" 22in 04-17 NEW Chevrolet Silverado Tahoe Suburban OEM WHEELS SET 4 5696

      Quantity: 4

      Color: Hyper Silver

      Manufacturer Part Number: 22905550, 22912545

      Rim Material: Aluminum Alloy

      Bolt Pattern: 6x139.7

      Brand: Chevrolet

      Wheel Cap: NOTE that the cap has a chrome bowtie

      Interchange Part Number: 560-5696, ALY5696, WAO.5696

      Hub Bore: 78.1

      Number of Bolts: 6

      Type: Genuine OEM

      Rim Width: 9
       







    • By Gorehamj

      John Goreham
      Contributing Writer, GM-Trucks.com
      12-10-2018
       
      The EPA posted the new fuel economy numbers for a variety of Silverado combinations this week. The new 2.7-liter engine is one highlight. What struck us after reviewing the info is that the numbers are not that impressive. Chevrolet made a lot of noise about the new truck's aerodynamics and engine technology, leading us to get the impression that some interesting numbers would follow.  Now that we see the numbers we are not so sure. First off, there are 38 different Silverado 1500 combinations listed by www.FuelEconomy.gov. Four pages of different fuel economy numbers for the model years 2018 and 2019. You can find them all yourself on the site to view which interest you, but we are pulling out a few for discussion purposes. 
       

      First Up 5.3L V8 4x 4  2018 vs. 2019
      To our eyes, the 2019s (denoted by "K") look like they get lower fuel economy. Are we mistaken?
       

      Next Up 4.3L V6 4 x 4 2018 vs. 2019
      The 4.3-liter V6 was more efficient last year is our take. What's yours?
       

      Next Up 2019 2.7L 4-cylinder turbo in 2WD vs. 4.3 V6 in 2WD for 2018 vs. Ram V6 2019
      The reason there are two Silverados is one is the work truck, the other not the work truck. They get different MPG ratings. The Ram is the new mild hybrid eTorque V6. Hmm.   
       
      Our friends at Automotive News asked Chevy's Monte Duran why the new trucks have lower fuel economy numbers than the old and he replied, "We increased towing capacity, payload, and it's a much larger bed and a much larger cab."  
       
    • By Justin_R
      Hope you guys are doing well! 
       
      Found a lovely deal for a chevy 2016 - LT Z71 - V5.3
      This is my first truck and looking to lift it. found a good price for Rough Country lift kit - 3.5 inch
       
       
               
       
      BILSTEIN 5100: https://psp.ae/product/bilstein-performance-shocks-15/
      Rough Country KIT: https://www.roughcountry.com/gm-suspension-lift-kit-275-8.html
       
      Many people been complaining about how cheap the rough country shocks are, so I was thinking is it possible to install Bilstein 5100 shocks kit on this kit? or would they not fit into these?  
      This way I would lift the truck + level it + have some what better shocks
      I thought about selling the Rough Country shocks instead
       
      Your thought and experience are much appreciated! 
       
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    201,225
    Total Topics
    2,139,815
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    169,911
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    ijskamp
    Newest Member
    ijskamp
    Joined
  • Who's Online   119 Members, 1 Anonymous, 746 Guests (See full list)

×

Important Information

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