Jump to content

Inaccurate DIC mpg indication

scubarob639

By scubarob639
in Troubleshooting & Recalls

Recommended Posts

scubarob639 New Member

scubarob639

Posted
Posted

2018 Silverado Z71 5.3L with 14K miles. DIC fuel average indicates 10.3% better fuel economy then actual MPG.  28 fill-ups and reset each time. Any way to calibrate meter?  1% variance maximum variance between each of 28 fill-ups.

Thanks for any assistance. Truck is 100% stock including tires. 

DougFL Enthusiast

DougFL

Posted
Posted

Make sure the tire size on the door tag is the same size you are driving.  Dealers have been known to swap wheels around.  Other than that the only way to change the calibration is via software download by the Dealer.

scubarob639 New Member

scubarob639

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Dealer has verified tire size and gear ratio match specs. GM field engineer states there is no way to correct this by software download or calibration.  Any other options?

DougFL Enthusiast

DougFL

Posted
Posted

Only other option would be to change your tire height by 10% to fool the calibration.  I think I would just live with it and know you actual reading is 10% lower!

TJay74 Senior Enthusiast

TJay74

Posted
Posted
On 11/7/2018 at 5:51 PM, DougFL said:

Make sure the tire size on the door tag is the same size you are driving.  Dealers have been known to swap wheels around.  Other than that the only way to change the calibration is via software download by the Dealer.

 

Even if the dealer did this as long as they take them from another 1500 series GM truck it wont matter, the overall tire height is the same across the board for all of the tire options on the 1500 series trucks.

 

The DIC is a rough guess, it is based off of the injection information that the computer knows from the fueling calculation.

  • 2 weeks later...
hotrod80z Enthusiast

hotrod80z

Posted
Posted

I noticed the same thing. My 2017 6.2 max trailer is 2 mpg more than measured.  I just did a 6000 mile trip, and the truck was consistently displayed 2mpg more than measured over 10 tanks of gas. Even the overall trip average, compared to measured was off by 2mpg, so I have to ask,  If it is that consistently wrong, they should easily be able to correct it?   I don't understand because my 2015 5.3 SLE was extremely accurate, and  never differed by more than .5mpg between displayed, and measured.  Some people don't care to much about what their mpg readout is, but I find this extremely irritating. My dealer also said there was nothing they could do, which is bulls**t

BTW my truck displayed 23mpg ave. and measured 21mpg ave

6_2LTZ Enthusiast

6_2LTZ

Posted
Posted

Mine is doing the same thing. Had a 2014 5.3 that was 99% accurate. My 2018 6.2 dic mpg is off by about 10.5%. It can't be from the tire size being off because I checked my trip odometer vs google maps and it's accurate to within 99%. I don't know if there is a fix for it. Doesn't make sense for it to be there if it's so inaccurate. 

TJay74 Senior Enthusiast

TJay74

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, 6_2LTZ said:

Mine is doing the same thing. Had a 2014 5.3 that was 99% accurate. My 2018 6.2 dic mpg is off by about 10.5%. It can't be from the tire size being off because I checked my trip odometer vs google maps and it's accurate to within 99%. I don't know if there is a fix for it. Doesn't make sense for it to be there if it's so inaccurate. 

 

 

If you changed tire sizes then it will be off if the rev per mile for the tire size dont match what is in the ECM.

  • 4 months later...
Jimmyc! Enthusiast

Jimmyc!

Posted
Posted

I read another post that speculated the mileage was based off of moving time and may not take into effect idling time. 

 

That's hopeful though. I've had a 2015 Silverado - accurate and a 2015 Sierra - also accurate. My 2018 Sierra is about 10% off.

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

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...