Jump to content

Open Club  ·  279 members

diesel 3.0

Recommended Posts

Posted

I have notice on my 2021 silverado 3.0 duramax that the def consumption really increases with trailering. I have hauled a 7000#  travel trailer 2000 miles and experienced consumption at a rate of around 2.5 gallons per 400 miles travel. My mileage while hauling is at 12.5mpg. This is half of my usual mpg as when i am not pulling a trailer i average 24 to 29 mpg. A month before i traveled 3000 miles not hauling and went through less than 3 gallons of def.  The other problem i have found is that i get warnings of 779 miles remaining before i run out of def but the def green gauge shows full. Any idea if i have a problem with these issues? Any recall notices?

  • 1 year later...
Posted

I just bought a 2021 AT4. It replaced a 2017 Colorado with a 2.8 L TD. So the Colorado didn't have any kind of guage on the DEF tank. It was truely a guessing game. If you let the tank get low, the check engine light would come on. What a pain in the ass! So I was excited that my new truck had a guage. From past expierience, Yes you will deffinetly use more DEF when towing.

  So far I am seeing that the guage isn't very accurate but simply a guide. I filled the tank when I got it and I have the trip odometer set to see about how many miles that I can get on a tank of DEF. Just a starting point. I also get a message saying how many miles left on DEF. 

  I recently towed my boat on a 3,000 mile trip and got 18 mpg average for the whole trip. I have noticed that the mpg is matched to the mph. At 60-65 mph I would get around 20 mpg, and at 70-75 mph I got 17 mpg. 

20220729_060236.jpg

20220729_060207.jpg

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • 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?
    • 2024 Silverado 2500 HD LTZ grille no camera Parts list   84603331 84913656 84913657 84913654 84913655 84911567 84911568 85646092 85646093 85797921 85797922   11570637  x10-15   grille/bumper bolts 11546500  x10      grille clips 11571006  x10      push/retainer clips 11546454  x6       nut retainers 11611609  x6       M5 bolts 11610700  x6       molding/trim retainers
    • And use RA's 5% discount code if you buy from them.  google for the code, one is always available.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...