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

[newdude]

There is a lot to look over and compare.  Everyone seems to be going after the lowest ones, and comparing to last year, but not realizing things don't match up.  Comparing the 8 speeds to the 6 speeds, Trail Boss to an 18, etc. 

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, newdude said:

There is a lot to look over and compare.  Everyone seems to be going after the lowest ones, and comparing to last year, but not realizing things don't match up.  Comparing the 8 speeds to the 6 speeds, Trail Boss to an 18, etc. 

IF GM is actually trying to improve their numbers then YES this is correct regardless of the tools they use (6 speed vs 10 speed). By your argument the fact that it lost 450 lbs. means we can't compare them? Bottom line is the 1500 Silverado gets worse mileage not better and for that there is no excuse. Pass/Fail that's the benchmark. 

[KevinM2141]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 4:50 AM, CadillacLuke24 said:

EXACTLY!

 

Until they can shrink the front end (never), improve efficiency of the internal combustion engine (possibly), or significantly streamline it (and ruin ground clearance), you'll see a plateau they cannot crest. 

 

 

 

[Barbara Glancy]

I have a 2006, 5.3L V8 4speed,K1500,4WD, 4.73 rear axle, & crew cab, my sticker from window 15 city & 19 hwy mpg. I'm kinda shocked they haven't increased fuel economy much. Maybe different, but  I  was looking at the V6 and it's not much better than mine also the 2018 5.3 V8  6 speed. All this time I thought you all driving the newer pickups were putting mine to shame with 30-50 mpg. Possibly a difference in tires/rims I made them change mine to stock 17", but it had $2200.0 dollar low-profile like 20" no tread, all rim ( not on my truck). I don't know I was hearing back then they would be getting higher and higher fuel economy. I pull a boat 6500lbs still get 14.3 city. Well guess I'll be staying with my 2006 till we are required to get electric. Is it just Chevy? Yes, you want fuel economy, but Chevy is the best truck in my view, I had 1998 S10 before and traded with my sister and husband for full size Ford. That S10 300+thousand mi. But body rusted after they moved to Michigan still running great. You can't beat a Chevy pickup made to last. My 06 only has 90,700 mi. and haven't had any problems. Good luck and I wouldn't let the fuel economy sway you from the pickup you like. Merry Christmas all.

God Bless.

 

[KevinM2141]

Colossus and CadillacLuke24 you guys are spot on. In the mid 70's I had a Chevy half ton pickup- cast iron motor,distributor with a set of points, and a Rochester 4 barrel carb and it would give me 15-16 MPG all day long! Here we are 45 plus years later and we are now up to a whopping 18 maybe 19 MPG!!! What a  joke!!!  I wish I had a new pickup with that 350 combination in it sitting in my driveway. At least a man could actually fix it himself when it wasn't running up to snuff. A new set of points and plugs and reset the timing with a timing light and away you went! Now you need a computer degree from Harvard to figure out what's wrong with the damn things! Aluminum motors, direct injection, variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation now down to two cylinders,all the aerodynamic junk and whatever else the wondrous engineers at GM can throw at us and they just don't seem to understand---------- A GALLON OF GASOLINE IS ONLY GOING TO PRODUCE SO MUCH  ENERGY IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU BURN IT!!!!!!! In conclusion the only thing I gather from all this nonsense is that it costs US the poor old consumer MORE MONEY. Nuff said.

[SS502]

1 hour ago, KevinM2141 said:

Colossus and CadillacLuke24 you guys are spot on. In the mid 70's I had a Chevy half ton pickup- cast iron motor,distributor with a set of points, and a Rochester 4 barrel carb and it would give me 15-16 MPG all day long! Here we are 45 plus years later and we are now up to a whopping 18 maybe 19 MPG!!! What a  joke!!!  I wish I had a new pickup with that 350 combination in it sitting in my driveway. At least a man could actually fix it himself when it wasn't running up to snuff. A new set of points and plugs and reset the timing with a timing light and away you went! Now you need a computer degree from Harvard to figure out what's wrong with the damn things! Aluminum motors, direct injection, variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation now down to two cylinders,all the aerodynamic junk and whatever else the wondrous engineers at GM can throw at us and they just don't seem to understand---------- A GALLON OF GASOLINE IS ONLY GOING TO PRODUCE SO MUCH  ENERGY IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU BURN IT!!!!!!! In conclusion the only thing I gather from all this nonsense is that it costs US the poor old consumer MORE MONEY. Nuff said.

Agree, my Chevelle has seen a shop one time. That was to custom make the drivers side header. I stuffed the ZZ502 in it and just needed a bit more clearance by the steering shaft...everything else is easily done in a garage owned by a novice. We won’t discuss fuel mileage on that car but your point is well taken!!

[CadillacLuke24]

The newer vehicles aren't impossible to work on, it's the take half the truck apart to get to one bolt crap that drives me up the wall

[TXGREEK]

Today I drove my 18 SLT CC 6.2 with a 4-5” CST lift over 100 highway miles with cruise set to 70 plus, decided to check the mileage half way into the drive.




Checked later and it jumped to 21.4 mpgs.


Sent from above

[KevinM2141]

That's great mileage for one short drive. I doubt that you'll see those numbers for a whole tank. I always check my MPG the old fashion way and divide total miles driven by actual gallons to refill. It always seems to figure out way less than what the DIC is telling me. I have a 5.3 with 3.42 gears and I never can average 23-24 MPG for the whole tank. Maybe 19-19.5.

[TXGREEK]

That's great mileage for one short drive. I doubt that you'll see those numbers for a whole tank. I always check my MPG the old fashion way and divide total miles driven by actual gallons to refill. It always seems to figure out way less than what the DIC is telling me. I have a 5.3 with 3.42 gears and I never can average 23-24 MPG for the whole tank. Maybe 19-19.5.

Nope, long trips the same, Im happily surprised too. In city 12-13 my right foot is in control but on highway it’s great. I noticed the difference once I did the SuperChips tune which literally gave me a few extra mpg’s. My 14 5.3 CC was horrible on mpg’s 16-18 mpg’s. Before my lift and bigger tires I really was getting 23-25 mpgs. Reason for posting this was to show that GM has come a long way especially with the 6.2. Granted it’s canned tuned and quite possibly due to the tire size adjustment, not sure.


Sent from above

[batman900]

@ Kevin, I have the same engine / gearing and never got less than 22 average a tank during the summer, now with winter gas and using remote start to warm her up for a few min "because it shifts funny when cold" I'm averaging 19+. My drive is 80% hwy 20% city. 75mph for most of it. By comparison I had a 2016 Tacoma V6 that would only average 18mpg on the same drive, it would downshift on a flat highway because of a headwind and downshift twice for hills.... just to hold speed!!!! I finally got my first look at a 2019 yesterday while getting an oil change, I can only imagine that all the arrow added was an afterthought, like they tested it and thought oh crap we need to do something about this. I mean it really looks like the guys over that threw everything they could think of at it. The small wheel wells, the flowing lines on the sides, lip spoilers on tailgate & roof, vents on the front etc. Add to it DFM, auto stop / start, less weight. It blows me away that they couldn't at least break even on the numbers. It looks like a much softer more stream lined truck overall. 

 

Off-topic but when I came back in, the sales lady that pointed me in their direction asked me what I thought, I said I hate it haha. I was on the fence about the design at first but it looks so much worse than pictures IMO. 

[KevinM2141]

12 minutes ago, batman900 said:

@ Kevin, I have the same engine / gearing and never got less than 22 average a tank during the summer, now with winter gas and using remote start to warm her up for a few min "because it shifts funny when cold" I'm averaging 19+. My drive is 80% hwy 20% city. 75mph for most of it. By comparison I had a 2016 Tacoma V6 that would only average 18mpg on the same drive, it would downshift on a flat highway because of a headwind and downshift twice for hills.... just to hold speed!!!! I finally got my first look at a 2019 yesterday while getting an oil change, I can only imagine that all the arrow added was an afterthought, like they tested it and thought oh crap we need to do something about this. I mean it really looks like the guys over that threw everything they could think of at it. The small wheel wells, the flowing lines on the sides, lip spoilers on tailgate & roof, vents on the front etc. Add to it DFM, auto stop / start, less weight. It blows me away that they couldn't at least break even on the numbers. It looks like a much softer more stream lined truck overall. 

 

Off-topic but when I came back in, the sales lady that pointed me in their direction asked me what I thought, I said I hate it haha. I was on the fence about the design at first but it looks so much worse than pictures IMO. 

I agree with you batman on the winter MPG. I get 19-19.5 too. I haven't checked my summer MPG lately. My son had a "14 Silverado with the 6.2 MAX TOW with 3.73 gears and he only got 18-19 MPG. But he had a very big leadfoot! He never understood what I kept telling him --- when the right foot goes down so does the MPG!. I agree with you on the looks of the 19's. I certainly wouldn't pay for those looks. If they gave me one for free MAYBE.

[KevinM2141]

52 minutes ago, TXGREEK said:

 

 

Nope, long trips the same, Im happily surprised too. In city 12-13 my right foot is in control but on highway it’s great. I noticed the difference once I did the SuperChips tune which literally gave me a few extra mpg’s. My 14 5.3 CC was horrible on mpg’s 16-18 mpg’s. Before my lift and bigger tires I really was getting 23-25 mpgs. Reason for posting this was to show that GM has come a long way especially with the 6.2. Granted it’s canned tuned and quite possibly due to the tire size adjustment, not sure.


Sent from above

 

I never thought about a tune. I don't know anything about them. I've read about them a little. They can really increase your mpg 2-3 miles per gallon?

[TXGREEK]

I never thought about a tune. I don't know anything about them. I've read about them a little. They can really increase your mpg 2-3 miles per gallon?

 

Canned Tunes are great for just about everything but some people do freak out worried about GM voiding warranty. Have had mine on for about 6 months and return it back to stock when visiting dealerships for maintenance or warranty and then engage once I’m done. https://superchips.com/flashpaq/

 

You can change tire size, turn off AFM, adjust the speed limiter etc etc.

 

 

Sent from above

[CadillacLuke24]

On 12/31/2018 at 10:19 PM, TXGREEK said:

Today I drove my 18 SLT CC 6.2 with a 4-5” CST lift over 100 highway miles with cruise set to 70 plus, decided to check the mileage half way into the drive.




Checked later and it jumped to 21.4 mpgs.


Sent from above

NICE

 

I often see similar numbers when mother nature wants to cooperate. During the summer with good weather and a majority of my route being state highway (Which in WY is 70 MPH speed limit), I see those numbers frequently. Speed goes up, mileage drops. I will crack 20 once in a blue moon on the interstate, but generally that's 18-19 territory. 

 

Now if you have lots of time, NEED to squeeze that last drop of gas for all it's worth, or are the fuel mileage king like Grumpy Bear, slow to 55. You'll be amazed at how much your mileage improves.

 

The only problem with that is it's no fun. ESPECIALLY with a 6.2