Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hey everyone, so I got a question, I have a 2019 silverado 5.3l v8 new body style, I randomly noticed when I filled my truck up it said I was only getting 267miles to the take, and getting 9.2 mpg, it's a 23 or 24gal tank, it runs fine I'm up on the maintenance,  so I ran threw the tank and filled up again and almost the same issue. I've researched it a bit and gm said it's supposed to be around 403miles a tank, I've seen other guys have a half tank and they have 215 to 230miles left and getting between 18-23 mpg. Can my short drive to work cause this? I live 7 miles from work so 14miles a day all highway.  Today I'm at just before half tank and it says I have 143 miles left. Anything to try or look into would be great.

Posted

How exactly are you calculating mileage? Are you just assuming you know the tank size and assuming you ran the full tank empty?

Posted

The tank size I used the info from my vin to figure out the size, and I'm going by the screen that tells me all my mpg and miles to empty. And yeah I've also ran it to empty then filled it to get the average size.

Posted

"Your mileage may vary"

 

Short trips kill mileage.  If you have lots of stop and go on your commute, that kills mileage.  If you remote start for long periods of time, that eats up fuel.

 

Tank is 24 gallons, that is correct.  Have you ever hand calculated a tank?  So fill the tank, reset one of your trip meters, run through the tank.  When you fill it up again, take total miles driven divided by the fuel added during fill up.  

 

So say you went 280mi on the tank.  Took 21 gallons.  That would be 13.3mpg hand calculated.  At your 267mi, was that to the fuel light being on?  Lets assume so, that leaves about 2 gallons in the tank at best.  267mi divide by 22 gal that's 12.1mpg.  

Posted

Ok, cool I'll try what u said, n do the math, I figured something with the short trips, I have like 2 months left on the factory warranty, before the other warranty kicks in, if there was something wrong I wanted gm to fix it, because I had a issue before with the sensor that tells u how full the tank was. N I would fill it, it would say I only 3/4 of a tank, they flashed the sensor n it seemed fine, it just made me wonder.

Posted

I get about 5 mpg difference in my wife’s car in town than she does.  To the good. I anticipate lights take off smoothly still aggressively. And limit idle time. Look at a plug it’ll tell you if it’s over fueling. 

Posted

I would recommend you download the smartphone app "Acar" I have been tracking every fuel up I have ever made on all my vehicles since 2009. It calculates your actual mileage by just inputting your odometer reading, gallons pumped and total cost of fuel every time you fill up. There are loads of other parameters that it will calculate as well.

 

Screenshot_20230301_113229.jpg

Posted

Do you have a heavy foot? 

 

My 2019 has a little over 54K miles on it.

 

When  I fill my tank, I am getting an estimated 457 mile range to empty.    Normally get 18 to 21+ mpg in daily driving.  The best mileage it calculated and it was on Interstate highway with a tail wind was 29.1.... before that it was 26 mpg.

 

When towing a double axle trailer loaded down with several pallets of wood and 3 passengers besides myself, the mileage is 15 mpg even on interstate.

 

Let the transmission shift and do the work to get you up to speed.   Sweet spot for excellent mileage on the 5.3 is under 2,000 rpm... really it is at about 1,500 to 1,800 rpm. 

 

The terrain you drive has a lot to do with it.

 

I use only full synthetic oil (0w-20) and full synthetic oil filter and I am always on top of changing the oil & filter before it needs to be done.   Do not wait for the oil life monitor to tell you to change it.

 

  • 1 year later...
Posted

I had the same issue. With my Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2024.

i went one day from doing 22 mpg and the next day 10mpg without towing anything and my range of miles to full tank was 466 and the next time I filled up it gave me 276 gallon to full tank. It been like 4 days and it have not change. The dealer says it nothing wrong. I don’t trust them. I am not an aggressive driver and was not driving more then 65 miles. I will go to dealership next time and have them show me another vehicle line my and see how much the full tank will show in miles I will guaranteed it will be around 460. I was doing 9 MPG heading to Miami driving 65 miles. 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Thrust bearing is a very small window.  But nice try.   Turbo oil filter?  Haven't seen any failures.  Change your oil more frequently.  Use a better oil than the factory oil.  
    • There is a p/n called out in the one PI that GM has.  Curt 57003 inline load adapter that is used for LED trailers that are having trouble with these newer trucks.  No cutting, no splicing, etc.  GM did update the lighting module around 2023 to better pick up trailers with LED lighting, but it still can happen.     Here's the link to the Curt site for it - 7-Way RV Blade LED Electrical Adapter (Not a Wiring Extension) SKU #57003 by CURT   The PI I am referencing - MC-10208985-9999.pdf   Its not just a GM deal either.  Newer Fords and Rams have this same problem.       In another PI, they recommend that the trailer has a Pollock brand 7 way on it as that is who makes the truck sides for the OEMs.  GM is also big on making sure the trailer is trouble free.  So no wiring issues, all lights are functional, better quality 7 way plug, etc.     The other PI I am referencing - MC-10178359-9999.pdf   The model year range is older but it is the current PI for 2014-2026.  It calls out the Pollock RV HD 7 way they recommend.  
    • That's part of the problem...the EGR has already been replaced, and I've already had the complete intake assembly removed, and the EGR passages were clear at that time. That leaves wiring, PCM, or another variable that I wasn't expecting. Best I can tell, it's not wiring or the PCM, so I'm grasping for straws.   The PCM uses the MAP reading to confirm the requisite loss of vacuum in the manifold when the EGR activates. Since that's vacuum related, it involves a lot of other systems which could play a role.   The overall diagnosis has to be considered too. The fuel lines in the intake had rubbed through and were dumping fuel into the intake, drowning the cylinders in fuel, and putting raw fuel into the sump and cat converter. The fuel system has been fixed but the complete path of damage may not be. If the cat was damaged and melted the internals, it could be partially obstructed and also playing into the EGR issue.   I'm retracing my steps; trying to go back to thinking thinking Horses not Zebras based on the clues I've been given. These engines aren't *that* complex.   Could it be, now that the truck is running well, that carbon and crud from being run with the fuel system in disarray is now dislodging and clogged my clean EGR passages where I can't see?  That's what the code is actually saying. The flow is restricted, dummy. Retrace step 1.   I may just need to remove the lower intake again. Before I do that I'm going to try removing the EGR and running the engine for a few seconds to see if it will blow anything lodged in the egr passages out through the open ports.     That's been helpful in the past. For the spider injector, there's no guarantee I'll get a working one. The spider I have seems fine now that the high pressure fuel line isn't making an early delivery via large hole. SO at least I'm not marooned and looking for one of those.   Row52 (dot com) is also a good one for watching for vehicles at local yards.  
    • Disassembly may be Required!   Every blender makes claims but do  you ponder those claims? What was really said? Was it true?  Motive for saying it? What does in infer?  Is that inference true?    Let's do one.    Claim: Made from shear stable base oils.    What was said: Base Oils are shear proof.   Was it true: Yes.  ALL base oils are Newtonian.    Motive / Inference: To imply the fully formulated product is Shear Proof.    Is the Inference true?: Most fully formulated multigrade oils contain Viscosity Modifiers or VM's, sometimes called VII or Viscosity Index Improvers. There are four types. One is in fact shear proof but it also has a bad effect on extreme cold flow and is restricted to use in specialty oils. A second has limited shear called a 0-5 SSI polymer. Meaning its shear is limited to a range of zero to five percent as reported by the ASTM D6278 Shear Stability Index test. A few high end oils, like Torco SR-5, use them and brag about it profusely. Actually all that use it point it out. The last two shear dramatically and are often marketed as a 'feature' of the product aiding the oil to meet fuel standard requirements of ever stricter rules. One shears more than 5% and the other up to 20%. As you make guess, cost is directly linked to shear down and as such the majority of oils use the cheapest organic polymers sold to make grade and pass stringent tests.    PPD's or Pour Point Depressants also shear a bit, only a few percent and hide inside the 0-5 SSI capabilities.    The blender knows he can not out engineer Stribeck. Physics is not a suggestion. But he can wordcraft the unsuspecting toward believing a false claims INFERENCE. This is LEGAL. It is COMMON, and it is EFFECTIVE.         
    • I don't recall ever dealing with one on an '06 and back. It may not even exist on that. I can't remember for sure.   Any kind of ice in or after the evaporator is normally due to low charge with both a clutch-cycling orifice tube system, and a TXV system.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...