Jump to content

Fuel Economy For 5.3L & 6.2L With DFM Released

Zane

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Black02Silverado Senior Enthusiast

Black02Silverado

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, i82much said:

I get 12.5 or so in my 6.0 2500hd.  Quit yer dang complaining ?

It likes to drink fuel, but it is one tough engine!

Z45 Senior Enthusiast

Z45

Posted
Posted

The V8 pickup truck is doomed vehicle.  GM is offering the I4 in the NBS and that's going to be the future.  When more socialists get elected to the highest offices in the country, they will get these V8 trucks and SUV's off the US roads.   Enjoy it while you can as your freedoms are going away slowly as the EPA rules the land.

 

. 

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

They’ve been trying to make a V8 into a 4 for a few years. The latest GM version is getting old enough now you’ll start seeing the reliability results of that. Want a real V8 in a truck? Toyota, Ford, Nissan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

diyer2 Senior Enthusiast

diyer2

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, elcamino said:

The V8 pickup truck is doomed vehicle.  GM is offering the I4 in the NBS and that's going to be the future.  When more socialists get elected to the highest offices in the country, they will get these V8 trucks and SUV's off the US roads.   Enjoy it while you can as your freedoms are going away slowly as the EPA rules the land.

 

. 

Disagree.

 

:)

EDL Enthusiast

EDL

Posted
Posted

When they can make an electric truck with 400+ HP that can go 500 miles between charges and only takes 5 minutes or less to charge, then I'll consider it...heh.

 

of course, as you say, as more people choose to elect socialists, we may not have that choice to make.

Doublebase Enthusiast

Doublebase

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, KARNUT said:

They’ve been trying to make a V8 into a 4 for a few years. The latest GM version is getting old enough now you’ll start seeing the reliability results of that. Want a real V8 in a truck? Toyota, Ford, Nissan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I think you're right about the trucks being old enough now that we'll start to see how reliable these things are. I would think they've held up reasonably enough - the 2014's have been out now for five years - and they sold maybe half a million of them in 14. So unless we are seeing/hearing of massive amounts of failures, then they must be doing ok. I know you hear about the occasional collapsed lifter around here, but for the most part I think statistically it's ok. I've talked to some guys at dealers and they say they don't usually see the Silverados in for major repairs. But who knows? 

 

I'll tell you one thing, I'll take a collapsed lifter over rings that need replacement. If I can make it to 150,000 without having an AFM issue, I'll be happy. At that point I'll either decide to do the repair or trade it in.

EDL Enthusiast

EDL

Posted
Posted

I know everyone's opinion varies, and trucks seem to be one subject where they vary a lot and usually involves, um, "spirited" discussions :-)

 

I look at it this way:  materials science, manufacturing processes, computer technology and all that have advanced so much in the last 30 years, and combined with the fact that pickup trucks aren't something humans have just recently invented, I fully expect my new truck with a nearly $60,000 price tag to be flawless in every respect.  Squeaks, vibrations, rumbling, shaking, odd transmission behaviors and all that should not be happening.  I do accept that the occasional lemon makes it out the door as these are complex machines and nothing is perfect.

 

Aside from that, I still wonder why 100,000 miles is the "magic" number, both in terms of when things start to go bad and trade-in values plummet.   You'd think with all the technology and science and newer super metals and such that vehicles would routinely go, say 200,000 without major mechanical issues, but nope, 100,000 miles has been the magic number for the last, what?  30 to 35 years or better?

 

I'll also add to that the short cuts design engineers use today.  I recall when a wheel bearing went bad, you went to the parts store and plopped down $50 or so for a set of bearings, came home and swapped them out.  Today, you just replace the entire freakin hub assembly at $500 or better each.  Why?  It's cheaper and easier for the manufacturer to make them that way and you, as the consumer, get the pleasure of paying for it.   But, those outrageous parts prices only further fuel my opinion that things should last longer.

 

 

 

 

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
Well I think you're right about the trucks being old enough now that we'll start to see how reliable these things are. I would think they've held up reasonably enough - the 2014's have been out now for five years - and they sold maybe half a million of them in 14. So unless we are seeing/hearing of massive amounts of failures, then they must be doing ok. I know you hear about the occasional collapsed lifter around here, but for the most part I think statistically it's ok. I've talked to some guys at dealers and they say they don't usually see the Silverados in for major repairs. But who knows? 

 

I'll tell you one thing, I'll take a collapsed lifter over rings that need replacement. If I can make it to 150,000 without having an AFM issue, I'll be happy. At that point I'll either decide to do the repair or trade it in.

One of the hardest problems NASCAR has with engines is related to the value train. Push rods, valves, lifters . That’s usually were the failures are. Right where their playing cylinder deactivation. Do we want to go back to the sixties and seventies and be satisfied with 150K miles tear downs? The problem with that is trucks cost more than 3K. I can visualize 5-7 year old GMs and Fords in the salvage yards. GMs side trucks with cylinder deactivation, Fords side V6 turbos. Engines that would usually go 300K miles before the great experiment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doublebase Enthusiast

Doublebase

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, KARNUT said:

One of the hardest problems NASCAR has with engines is related to the value train. Push rods, valves, lifters . That’s usually were the failures are. Right where their playing cylinder deactivation. Do we want to go back to the sixties and seventies and be satisfied with 150K miles tear downs? The problem with that is trucks cost more than 3K. I can visualize 5-7 year old GMs and Fords in the salvage yards. GMs side trucks with cylinder deactivation, Fords side V6 turbos. Engines that would usually go 300K miles before the great experiment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I guess I probably shouldn't have said I'd be happy with a collapsed lifter at 150,000, lol. It's just that I guess it could be worse. But yeah I'd much prefer 300,000 of trouble free engine performance. I must say despite all the talk of...engines are so durable, so good, nowadays...I've never gotten 300,000 trouble free miles out of an engine (and I take care of my cars). My Honda Accord - owned since new - began guzzling oil at 270,000 miles...had to get rid of it at 280,000. Keep in mind I changed the oil EVERY 3,000 miles on that car. Vtec problems, egr issue, idle issue, gasket leaks, O2 sensor, engine mounts every other year. And that was a great car.

 

Lexus LS460 - really thought this car was capable of going 300,000 easy - problem was it just turned into a serious oil burner at 160,000. Real bad. Turns out they have "head issues". Valve guides. $12,000 dollar fix. Not happening. Honestly I think my rings were shot though. All I know is that so much oil was going back into the intake, the thing was flooded with oil everyday. Pretty bummed that car didn't make it the distance because it was an amazing car overall. Synthetic oil changes every 5,000 miles religiously. Didn't matter. Nothing really does with bad design. 

 

I plan on doing 5,000 mile synthetic oil changes with my truck, we'll see if that helps in the collapsed lifter department (I hear keeping up with oil changes is key with the AFM on these engines). Then again I heard the same thing with my last two vehicles.

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
Yeah I guess I probably shouldn't have said I'd be happy with a collapsed lifter at 150,000, lol. It's just that I guess it could be worse. But yeah I'd much prefer 300,000 of trouble free engine performance. I must say despite all the talk of...engines are so durable, so good, nowadays...I've never gotten 300,000 trouble free miles out of an engine (and I take care of my cars). My Honda Accord - owned since new - began guzzling oil at 270,000 miles...had to get rid of it at 280,000. Keep in mind I changed the oil EVERY 3,000 miles on that car. Vtec problems, egr issue, idle issue, gasket leaks, O2 sensor, engine mounts every other year. And that was a great car.
 
Lexus LS460 - really thought this car was capable of going 300,000 easy - problem was it just turned into a serious oil burner at 160,000. Real bad. Turns out they have "head issues". Valve guides. $12,000 dollar fix. Not happening. Honestly I think my rings were shot though. All I know is that so much oil was going back into the intake, the thing was flooded with oil everyday. Pretty bummed that car didn't make it the distance because it was an amazing car overall. Synthetic oil changes every 5,000 miles religiously. Didn't matter. Nothing really does with bad design. 
 
I plan on doing 5,000 mile synthetic oil changes with my truck, we'll see if that helps in the collapsed lifter department (I hear keeping up with oil changes is key with the AFM on these engines). Then again I heard the same thing with my last two vehicles.

I have to admit being an older dude it chaps my ass they would mess with my favorite small block. Especially since they get great gas mileage anyway. I do know a few people who have gotten right at 300K, miles my brother in law on two Tahoe’s and his daughter with a pickup. I hope cylinder deactivation works for everyone. I will not take part in the experiment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
mookdoc6 Senior Enthusiast

mookdoc6

Posted
Posted
On 7/2/2018 at 11:33 AM, Doublebase said:

Well I think you're right about the trucks being old enough now that we'll start to see how reliable these things are. I would think they've held up reasonably enough - the 2014's have been out now for five years - and they sold maybe half a million of them in 14. So unless we are seeing/hearing of massive amounts of failures, then they must be doing ok. I know you hear about the occasional collapsed lifter around here, but for the most part I think statistically it's ok. I've talked to some guys at dealers and they say they don't usually see the Silverados in for major repairs. But who knows? 

 

I'll tell you one thing, I'll take a collapsed lifter over rings that need replacement. If I can make it to 150,000 without having an AFM issue, I'll be happy. At that point I'll either decide to do the repair or trade it in.

GM is using the same architecture and very minimal tweeks to the Current Engine Lineup of V-8's and stuffing those into another production run for 5 years?  Wonder why?  GM has probably built the most reliable, efficient small block's on planet Earth they are basically telling you this by using again for next Full-Size BOF vehicles.  These LT's are a cut above folks they are that good..........100k miles on em is a JOKE   

Willborio Enthusiast

Willborio

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, O_J_Simpson said:

Watching truck guys talk about fuel economy is like watching fat girls discuss diet plans. You can't help but laugh. 

Yea I mean you're right. Why be glad to see better hp and tq numbers along with better fuel efficiency? I mean a 98 1500 with a 350 made 75% of the current power and 10 less mpg. Even truck guys can be glad to see better mpg

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...