Jump to content

2019 Chevy Silverado Fuel Economy Surprise - Headed Down, Not Up

Gorehamj

Recommended Posts

Gorehamj Senior Enthusiast

Gorehamj

Posted
Posted

silverado 19 wind chamber.jpg

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. 

 

silverado k 18 vs 19.png

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?

 

Silverado K 4.3.png

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?

 

silverado vs ram 2.7.png

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."  

 

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Sierra Dan Senior Enthusiast

Sierra Dan

Posted
Posted

Kind of an embarrassing setback. :(

GM advertised the new body styling and cheek air curtains would aid in better economy.

The Dynamic Skip Fire cylinder technology was suppose to also increase economy.

Not to mention the 400 or so lbs of weight reduction.

 

smit303 Enthusiast

smit303

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, O_J_Simpson said:

The lower door mirrors are killing fuel economy. 

No. It's the round wheel openings.

SS502 Senior Enthusiast

SS502

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Sierra Dan said:

Kind of an embarrassing setback. :(

GM advertised the new body styling and cheek air curtains would aid in better economy.

The Dynamic Skip Fire cylinder technology was suppose to also increase economy.

Not to mention the 400 or so lbs of weight reduction.

 

Aren't they also standard with the Start/Stop/Start technology too?

rkj__ Enthusiast

rkj__

Posted
Posted

Worse fuel economy, and a smaller fuel tank.  *shakes head*

 

But, the bed is 7" wider, and  rear crew cab passengers get a mile of space between their knees and the front seats, as well as HVAC vents...

 

I think maybe the midsize truck market will see a magnificent resurgence. 

pickmeup Enthusiast

pickmeup

Posted
Posted

Yes but you have start stop technology and aero curtains. Oh wait there is more.....even tailgate is designed with aero flow top priority . How could this be ??

rkj__ Enthusiast

rkj__

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, pickmeup said:

Yes but you have start stop technology and aero curtains. Oh wait there is more.....even tailgate is designed with aero flow top priority . How could this be ??

 

Frontal area increased. This is the biggest factor I suspect.

Gear ratios changed. It's hard to imagine this would have had a negative effect on economy though. 

aseibel Senior Enthusiast

aseibel

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SS502 said:

Aren't they also standard with the Start/Stop/Start technology too?

yeah, but that wouldn't affect highway mileage. I don't even know if the epa test for city driving would make the engine stop at all. 

pickmeup Enthusiast

pickmeup

Posted
Posted

Just seems crazy you would spend a fortune on new D.O.D. system, aero package assist and weight reduction and end up with the same or tiny bit worse than what you had. Bear in mind you never increased hp on engines neither. 

SS502 Senior Enthusiast

SS502

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, aseibel said:

yeah, but that wouldn't affect highway mileage. I don't even know if the epa test for city driving would make the engine stop at all. 

I must have read the report wrong, thought it was city and highway, either way doesn’t bode well for GM.

aseibel Senior Enthusiast

aseibel

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, SS502 said:

I must have read the report wrong, thought it was city and highway, either way doesn’t bode well for GM.

Their test does include highway and city. The problem is the auto start stop only saves fuel when sitting still at a stoplight or in a traffic jam. I don't know if their "city" test includes much of that, or if it just involved stop signs. So even though that feature is designed to save fuel, and increase your fuel economy per tank, it doesn't affect MPGS while the vehicle is moving.

Black02Silverado Senior Enthusiast

Black02Silverado

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, rkj__ said:

 

Frontal area increased. This is the biggest factor I suspect.

Gear ratios changed. It's hard to imagine this would have had a negative effect on economy though. 

To me this is the main cause.  You can reduce weight but increasing the frontal area and now you are pushing more air than before makes a huge diffence. So how much weight would it really take to loose to overcome the resistance to pushing that air?  To me they didn't seem to streamline it much.  They say the extra spoiler on the back of the cab and the tailgate help.  It seems to me they needed to do more.  JMO.

Yondu Enthusiast

Yondu

Posted
Posted

Are you guys really going to post pics comparing the Trailboss models to regular models?

 

Seems a bit misleading.

 

Also read that there were changes to EPA testing procedures.  Don't forget that the 2018 models with the 6 speed had 3.08 gears standard, I believe these 6 speed 5.3s are 3.42 standard. Lots of factors at play. 

mawint Enthusiast

mawint

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Yondu said:

Are you guys really going to post pics comparing the Trailboss models to regular models?

 

Seems a bit misleading.

 

Also read that there were changes to EPA testing procedures.  Don't forget that the 2018 models with the 6 speed had 3.08 gears standard, I believe these 6 speed 5.3s are 3.42 standard. Lots of factors at play. 

Those appear to be screenshots from the federal site. I think the site only has one image for the 2019 Silverado. Looks like the 2018 only had one image as well. 

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Chuck FB
      summer road trips in the 2026 2500HD

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
    • Aimatdeer
      Ac not keeping up

      By Aimatdeer · Posted

      Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • CamGTP
      Gas Prices

      By CamGTP · Posted

      Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Atlas
      Gas Prices

      By Atlas · Posted

      Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...