Jump to content

FUEL ECONOMY - Average miles per gallon seem very low?? Ways to improve??

LisaandJoe Navarro

Recommended Posts

LisaandJoe Navarro New Member

LisaandJoe Navarro

Posted
Posted

Hi everyone, first time posting. I've noticed since I purchased my 2015 5.3l chevy suburban that the average miles per gallon is low. I dont rev my engine, I always keep the screen up to monitor my fuel economy as i drive. I seem to always avg 15-16mpg road and 17-18hwy....

 

Does this seem normal???

 

I put in regular unleaded from krogers and costco.

 

I have 43k miles on my vehicle 

 

Live in an area without high terrain.  Regular suburbia.

 

Something just does not seem right.  

 

Any input, help, modifications, changes required to improve?

 

- yours truly

A concerned chevy owner! 

Thank you!!!!

DougFL Enthusiast

DougFL

Posted
Posted

Is your AFM working?  Are you running Full synthetic oil?  What rear gear are you running?  My 2016 Silverado 5.3L  with 8 speed and 3:42 gear averaged 20.7 mpg over 84,000 miles and typically got 22 mpg on the Highway.  My 2019 5.3L Silverado, with 8 speed and 3:23 gears is doing even better!  This is my current tank of fuel:

Fuel1107.jpg

markitzero Enthusiast

markitzero

Posted
Posted

'16 Suburban with 44k and the lifetime fuel efficiency shown on the iPhone app is 16.3. I reset the trip computer every fill-up and I've seen the average for the tank as low as 12 and high as 19. 

Black02Silverado Senior Enthusiast

Black02Silverado

Posted
Posted

Our 2016 Suburban gets that as well.  Our last trip up to D.C. we got 19mpg.  One trip we did got 21mpg.

 

IMG_3896.PNG

DougFL Enthusiast

DougFL

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, LisaandJoe Navarro said:

Hey Doug,

Thanks for responding.

 

How can I find out if my AFM is working?

How can I tell what speed and gear I am in?

The standard rear ratio on the 16 Suburban was a 3:42 unless you have a tow package.  On the Silverado the AFM would be indicated on the Dash when V8 changed to V4.

Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, DougFL said:

Is your AFM working?  Are you running Full synthetic oil?  What rear gear are you running?  My 2016 Silverado 5.3L  with 8 speed and 3:42 gear averaged 20.7 mpg over 84,000 miles and typically got 22 mpg on the Highway.  My 2019 5.3L Silverado, with 8 speed and 3:23 gears is doing even better!  This is my current tank of fuel:

Fuel1107.jpg

 

47 minutes ago, LisaandJoe Navarro said:

Hi everyone, first time posting. I've noticed since I purchased my 2015 5.3l chevy suburban that the average miles per gallon is low. I dont rev my engine, I always keep the screen up to monitor my fuel economy as i drive. I seem to always avg 15-16mpg road and 17-18hwy....

 

Does this seem normal???

 

Enjoy your Suburban and don't set your MPG expectations by what some members are achieving on their pickups!  I once owned a new  '86 Suburban and it didn't get close to your numbers!

Black02Silverado Senior Enthusiast

Black02Silverado

Posted
Posted

You have to remember that the Suburban is one heavy beast unlike the Silverado's.  That and add people and cargo and the weight packs on. 

 

Might try running midgrade fuel for a few tanks and see what happens.  I run premium in ours.

The Zip Senior Enthusiast

The Zip

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, LisaandJoe Navarro said:

Any input, help, modifications, changes required to improve?

There are other factors that can detract from fuel mileage, right off the top you can throw in speed, very large tires, type of tire (snow or highway, hard or soft), very low tire pressure, strong headwinds, dirty air filter, and clogged injectors.  Speed, tire pressure, air filter, and injectors can be done right away, those may gain you a mile or two.  I drive in uneven terrain and my Tahoe is consistently low twenties.

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

You have to remember that the Suburban is one heavy beast unlike the Silverado's.  That and add people and cargo and the weight packs on. 

The Suburban weight is about a thousand more than my RCSB. Hilly country, Ohio I see. The EPA highway number is based on speeds lower than most people drive. The Fuelly.com numbers are the averages of lots of vehicles over lots of miles. A fair representation I would think. 

 

 

Rteefact Enthusiast

Rteefact

Posted
Posted

Something must be wrong or not functioning. Could it be stuck in trailer-haul mode? I have a 2015 Tahoe and my low is 13 around town but consistently on the highway its 21-22. I've even hit 24.5 on long trips. Maybe it needs a reprogram at the dealer.  

  • 3 weeks later...
K2xxSteve Enthusiast

K2xxSteve

Posted
Posted

Just got back from a 500 mile Thanksgiving road trip and averaged 19.1 mpg overall, including all local driving and at least 5 full throttle passes around idiots, including one double pass 40-75 mph on a two lane back road with a 55 mph limit and the idiot two cars in front not even hitting 40 mph. Without all that, I probably could have hit 20 mpg overall. :) Easily hit 22 mpg on the highway, right on target, despite pushing through freezing cold and thick air. 1000 miles on the '18 Suburban, regular grade fuel, 3.42 gears, 22" wheels with factory Bridgestones set at 32 psi cold, 5 passengers and luggage plus a dog. I'm getting 12-14 mpg in 100% local city traffic, which is about what I expected to get. The biggest issue there are the short trips and the oil never really getting up to temperature (oil temp lags coolant temp by about 10 minutes - is there a way to hack the DIC to show oil temp rather than coolant temp? Probably not). My work commute is a whopping 1 mile so yes, mileage is terrible, but at least I don't have to go very far. Lol

GE3A2747-HD.jpg

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • 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.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...