At the end of June, Chevy released the 2019 Silverado fuel economy figures that have gone pretty much unreported, until now.
The figures that Chevy released are somewhat limited, since they apply to only two EcoTec3-based powertrain combinations of the T1 platform-based 2019 Silverado. In addition, the figures are also preliminary, meaning that they might change (for better or worse) as the truck nears launch. With that being said, here goes.
2019 Silverado With 5.3L V8 L84 Engine
The 2019 Silverado with the 5.3L V8 L84 engine and Dynamic Fuel Management (DFM) mated to the updated GM 8-speed transmission is estimated to achieve 17 MPG city, 23 MPG highway and 19 MPG combined. By comparison, the outgoing K2 platform Silverado with the 5.3L V8 L83 and Active Fuel Management (AFM) mated to the first iteration of the 8-speed auto was rated at 16 MPG city, 23 MPG highway and 19 MPG combined.
In effect, the all-new Silverado with the updated 5.3L delivers the same power as its predecessor, while gaining an extra mile per gallon in the city and keeping the highway and combined fuel economy metrics the same – without resorting to smaller-displacement, turbocharged engines like the Ford F-150.
| Vehicle | 2019 Silverado 1500 | 2017 Silverado 1500 |
|---|---|---|
| Engine | 5.3L V8 L84 | 5.3L V8 L83 |
| Cylinder Deactivation Tech | Dynamic Fuel Management | Active Fuel Management |
| Transmission | 8-speed auto MQE | 8-speed auto M5U |
| Wheel Drive | 2WD | 2WD |
| Power (hp / kW @ RPM) | 355 / 265 @ 5600 | 355 / 265 @ 5600 |
| Torque (lb – ft / Nm @ RPM) | 383 / 518 @ 4100 | 383 / 518 @ 4100 |
| City MPG | 17 | 16 |
| Highway MPG | 23 | 23 |
| Combined MPG | 19 | 19 |
2019 Silverado With 6.2L V8 L87 Engine
Meanwhile, the Silverado with the 6.2L V8 L87 engine and DFM mated to the new GM 10-speed transmission is rated at 16 MPG city, 20 MPG highway and 17 MPG combined. By comparison, the outgoing K2 platform Silverado with the 6.2L V8 L86 and AFM mated to the first iteration of the 8-speed auto was rated at 15 MPG city, 21 MPG highway, and 17 MPG combined.
This makes the new Silverado 1 MPG more efficient in the city and for some reason 1 MPG less efficient on the highway, with the same combined fuel economy rating, also without moving to smaller-displacement, turbocharged engines like the Ford F-150.
| Vehicle | 2019 Silverado 1500 | 2017 Silverado 1500 |
|---|---|---|
| Engine | 6.2L V8 L87 | 6.2L V8 L86 |
| Cylinder Deactivation Tech | Dynamic Fuel Management | Active Fuel Management |
| Transmission | 10-speed auto MQB | 8-speed auto M5U |
| Wheel Drive | 2WD | 2WD |
| Power (hp / kW @ RPM) | 420 / 313 @ 5600 | 420 / 313 @ 5600 |
| Torque (lb – ft / Nm @ RPM) | 460 / 621 @ 4100 | 460 / 621 @ 4100 |
| City MPG | 16 | 15 |
| Highway MPG | 20 | 21 |
| Combined MPG | 17 | 17 |
About The Numbers
- 2019 Silverado figures provided by General Motors and are preliminary, meaning that they could change
- We reached out to GM twice for comment regarding whether the figures are for 2WD or 4WD vehicles, and gave them 6 days to get back to us – but have yet to receive a reply
- 2017 Silverado figures provided are official and provided by the EPA
Ratings For Other Engines
Chevy has yet to share fuel economy figures for all other 2019 Silverado engine combinations, including the 4.3L V6 LV1, 2.7L Turbo L3B I4 and 5.3L V8 L82. The bowtie has also not yet revealed any power or torque ratings for the new 3.0L Duramax LM2 turbo-diesel engine for the 2019 Silverado Diesel.
What are your thoughts on these figures? Sound off in the comments section below.
Comments
Man, what a let down.
Allow I will say that my 2012 5.3 LTZ with 2″ lift and Toyo ATII tires gets better highway MPG than it was EpA rated. When I was all factory setup I was getting even better. I believe people with the first gen EcoTec3 motors on the 2014-2018 trucks also got better than EPA rating
It’s possible these DFM engines just don’t behave well during the EPA test cycle
If I remember right from a while back, the EPA did not allow AFM during MPG ratings. Thus, real world results were much better than the Monroney sticker. DFM is an upgrade from AFM and we could see even better numbers than its predecessor in the wild. Alex, do you have any insight into the EPA and what it limits?
Even with AFM disabled, my 2014 Sierra 5.3 easily beats its EPA estimates.
Yep, rather disappointing, especially given the large weight savings.
My mind is blown. These trucks are significantly lighter, have two more gears, and better cylinder management. And the 6.2L get’s worse highway. Sounds like the aero component is the most significant piece to the puzzle. I drive a EcoBoost Expedition and I consistently get 16mpg combined. I’ll continue to argue that turbo motors seem to pencil whip the EPA test cycle better than naturally aspirated motors. Obviously, in the real world, we’re not seeing any real difference. Looks like we’ve finally found the upper end of the pushrod fuel economy curve. Whatever. Let’s start boosting these motors to stupid power.
If I am not mistaken, Its because 6.2L is only available with 4×4 right now. Thats why the HWY number is 1 MPG worse. I think the article is wrong on the 2×2.
If they dropped in a version of GM’s 4.2TT, as long as it’s quicker and received better MPGs, people wouldn’t have much to complain about…
As I look over the ordering guide again since we already ordered an AT4 and remember seeing that, it is in fact true that you need 4×4 for the 6.2l. So its not apples to apples. Unless 4×4 MPG from last generation is the same.
As far as the 5.3l L83 & L84 go, you get your 1 extra mpg city at the hands of the auto stop/start which is not selectable and sucks. I stand corrected as posted below, thanks. It’s still a feature that sucks though and most I’ve spoken with don’t like it and disable if possible. New Caddy’s aren’t selectable according to the sales rep we dealt with.
What? There’s a button to turn it off right on the center stack, on the new truck.
There is a toggle switch on the dash to turn it off yes.
It is selectable everytime you start the truck, might even be able to turn it completely off in the vehicle settings. It just can’t be flat out deleted as a feature.
It can not be turned off in the settings. If you could shut it off in the Settings the EPA would not test it. It must be the default setting.
Just get a piggy back. I have one on my 5.3 that shuts off AFM. V4 sounds like poooo with my borla and I don’t like the little bit of hesitation so off it went.
Shouldn’t be hard to do to stop/start.
I am a Chevyman 100 % , but 1 MPG with weight loss
and all the changes made to the engines is a disappointment !
It shouldn’t be surprising. Even the 5.3 is a big ol pushrod lug (not knocking it). These 8s are good at keeping things consistent.
GM is just pulling a Ford move and keeping drive trains the same at launch.
Phase 1. New model that sells more trucks.
Phase 1a: rebates that sell more trucks.
Phase 2. Same model with new PTrain (look at 2500HD with L5P + hood scoop), that also sells more trucks.
Phase 2a: some extra bates that sell more trucks.
Phase 3. Exterior Refresh, that sells more trucks.
Phase 3a: Insane rebates that sell more trucks.
Phase 4(otherwise known as new model Phase 1). New truck with same power trains, that sells more trucks.
Phase 4a: some bates that shove metal into the street.
Get it?
Alex – Your paragraph has city miles at 17mpg for both the AFM and DFM configurations. Your data table appears to accurately display the mpg ratings.
Thanks for the heads up. Fixed!
My 2014 Silverado 4.3 reg cab 2wd gets 22mpg in Summer and 19 mpg in cold weather city. 24 mpg highway.
No way not a chance. Well maybe, but I’m guessing what youre considering city driving is no where near the EPA city cycle, or even typical real world city driving conditions
No it doesnt!!!
Makes you wonder whether Chevrolet was not being totally honest in year’s past because you would expect a 10-percent minimum in mileage improvement given the weight lost.
Ratings on widow stickers are not GM’s; they are gov’t ratings.
Listen up folks, GM has been a disappointment with the release of all the specifications as it relates to the 2019 trucks. Now, why the hell would you go out of your way to reduce weight, improve aerodynamics and then introduce DFM with the same power ratings, just to gain 1mpg in the city and loose 1mpg on the highway?
This is ridiculous! How comes the ZF 8-speed can sprint much faster than GM’s 8-cog and still deliver better mpgs for the competition? Yet the same ZF seems to pretty much out do the new 10-speed as well.
To Gm engineers, you have done a miserable job as it relates to power, efficiency, and tow ratings with these 2019 trucks. What the hell happen to PIDI as it relates to the upgraded 5.3 and 6.2 V-8s with DFM? Boy, I do hope that I am wrong for GM’s sake. After all, Ford upgraded their engines with port fuel and direct injection and look how its paying off for them.
“What the hell happen to PIDI” ?
It is ZR1 exclusive for now (at least for 2018), as GM has always done with any “performance” based tech.
Trickle down economics, I know, it sucks. I think the true measure of DFM will show when it is paired with PIDI. Can you imagine how far the ZR1 would go on a gallon of fuel? Why would they spend too much time tuning for just Direct Injection if it’s going away?
I’ll just wait for an official announcement from chevrolet regarding MPG numbers and HP figures for the new engines. Kind of hard to believe something when there isn’t even a link to support the claims.
Wrong.
The source of these is Chevrolet/GM themselves.
Journalism 101 teaches us not to link to press releases. The article clearly lists the source of the numbers as being GM… not once, but twice – in the first paragraph and then in the “About The Numbers” section.
I’m not wrong, I’m just saying how it is with facts.
So far all the articles you’ve posted about mpg numbers and horsepower figures have no links to official announcements from chevrolet or any other official sources that back up your claims. Yet you claim they’re coming straight from chevrolet themselves, but with no proof.
You say “journalism 101 teaches you to not post links to press releases”, but isn’t that the whole point of operating a website that dedicates itself to delivering OFFICIAL general motors news?
But you are wrong.
Specifically, you are wrong about your theory regarding the source of these 2019 Silverado fuel economy numbers. I’m not sure what “facts” you are citing, but do follow along as I provide the true and untwisted facts.
Unlike some other online publications (I won’t name names), GM Authority (and properties operated by its parent firm, Motrolix) are run by a team of professional journalists with journalistic integrity, a term that gets tossed around a lot today to the point that it has lost a lot of its meaning over the past few decades. I am proud to be a part of this dynamic, amazing and brilliant team. What this ultimately means is that we do not misinform or otherwise mislead our readers, nor would we ever even think about doing so. Our culture and processes simply do not allow it.
In this particular instance, when we say that the MPG numbers for the 2019 Silverado are provided by Chevrolet/GM, what reason exists for you to doubt this claim? The only reason I can think of is that you did not get a link… so you automatically assumed that the figures are untrue. But what reason has GM Authority given you to make this assumption in the first place? The answer is, “no reason, whatsoever”.
So, let me make this crystal clear: not only are the MPG numbers cited above directly from Chevrolet/GM, but we have also been in direct contact with the automaker about the figures. If you are hell-bent on looking at an official statement, I welcome you to check out the announcement linked here.
Moreover, GM Authority has never linked to a press release in the decade that it has been in existence. Notably, you also won’t get a link to a press release from any other reputable publication. In other words, there is a reason that the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times and dozens more reputable journalistic entities do not link to press releases or provide them as part of their work.
And as for this…
“You say “journalism 101 teaches you to not post links to press releases”, but isn’t that the whole point of operating a website that dedicates itself to delivering OFFICIAL general motors news?”
I believe that the misunderstanding behind this statement is the root cause of our conversation here.
GM Authority does not dedicate itself “to delivering OFFICIAL general motors news”. Instead, we are dedicated to providing news about General Motors and its brands/products/services/etc., whether official or not. If we were to limit ourselves to solely covering official GM news, then we would not have much value.
Hope that clears things up.
Finally, so as not to detract from the core of this comment thread any further, feel free to email me directly with any further comments on this matter. I am around 24/7 at alex.luft [at] motrolix [dot] com
Best comparison is vs ’18 Escalade/Yukon with 6.2/10A, which, in 2WD, shows 14/23/17. In that comparison, the “new” DFM 6.2 shows 2mpg better in the city, 2mpg worse on the highway, and unchanged in combined.
The 2mpg city *might* *partially* be attributable to auto stop/start and/or the probably 1,000# difference between the current gen SUV vs the forthcoming pickup. But losing 2mpg on the highway is inexcusable and inexplicable.
“For the record,” my ’16 6.2/8A Z71 crew cab averaged (overall) 21.0 mpg through 84,000 miles…then I installed 33″ AT’s and a tune…and have averaged 21.4mpg in the 8k miles since.
I really hope this is some kind of testing anomaly. Zero power increase, 400# weight reduction, and 2 more gears just to get a net wash on fuel economy is embarrassing for GM.
why bother with the extra expense and complexity of Dynamic fuel management for a measly 1 mpg or in some instances less mpg. No more HP or TQ, less weight a more complex and expensive fuel management system and no better mileage. Looks like a lose lose situation to me.
You guys are not getting it. The two engines aren’t in there for fuel economy and we all know those two will exceed the ratings. Whatever gains there were we’ll see them in midcycle refresh.
There will be 2 more engine offerings focused on fuel economy. That’s where we’ll see the new truck excel in that area.
I see the 2.7T reach 25-27 mpgs highway and the 3.0 Diesel 30-32 mpgs highway.
Thank you! This is what I have been trying to say the past 4 post regarding MPG on the new V8 Silverados. The V8’s arn’t the fuel economy play. If you want better MPG get the 2.7L turbo or get the diesel.
Wrong! All new iterations of power trains and platforms should improve on efficiency: improved performance or capability with equal fe, Better fe, or some of both. Ram’s same Hemi with the same transmission in an all-new lower drag truck gets exactly the same mpg with the same exact performance, albeit more capable but with fewer configuration choices. Rumor has it that eTorque will move the new Ram to just under Silverado and F150 V8s. No word on the V6 yet. For 2018, F150 reworked their 2.7 and 5.0 and improved on performance, capability and mpg for both. They once again came in with another new base engine, which is a head scratcher, but improved on performance and mpg versus the outgoing base. And in 2017, they came out with an all- new 3.5 TT and an all new transmission and improved performance, capability and mpg.
Chevy sells V8’s. People who but chevy buy v8’s. at least half the sales will be LT with the 5.3, and the bulk of the rest LTZ and high country with the 5.3 and 6.2. in 2014chevys new v8’s surpassed the ecoboost v6 in fuel economy. The 5.3 probably will surpass the ecoboost again once actual real life data emerges. none of these engines are 100% efficient and the most efficient one will get the best mileage. the 2.7 is an intro engine, and not on par with the 5.3. its just a way to make the LT cheaper without compromising as low as the 4.3 dinosaur.
Very little of that comment makes sense. I’m glad you tried to tout Chevy’s V8 versus Ford’s power train offerings, because even just considering that one engine type, Ford offers far better value than what Chevy is going to offer in their new truck.
Yes Chevy sells V8s; so does all the other manufacturers. Even if we disregard Ford’s turbo choices for a moment, Ford offers much better value with respect to their V8 versus Chevy’s V8. Ford’s 5.0L is very popular; #2 overall with almost 30% uptake out of 4 gas-powered engine choices. Ford’s 5.0L is available at all trim levels except the very highest Limited trim and is available in all configurations from a sub $30K, RCSB, 2WD XL pickup through Platinum Crew Cab 4WD, but all F150 V8-powered truck customers, regardless of configuration or price paid, gets their best and most advanced engineering when they choose an F150 with a V8; it’s newly reworked for 2018 model year; it’s mated to a ten speed from 2018; it has dual fuel injection also new for 2018; it has class-leading mpg, up from 2017, and very competitive peak horsepower and torque, up from 2017; and will still be class-leading payload by more than 700 pounds even after the 2019 Silverado is for sale. The top payload F150 happens to be a 5.0L regular cab, long bed. It can be configured to haul up to 3270 pounds. Chevy’s top hauler (just announced) for the upcoming 2019 model requires a customer choose the old 4.3L and 6-speed and it’s still 700 pounds lower in it’s highest form. Chevy’s 5.3L top payload is even lower than that. Just like Chevy buyers, Ford buyers rarely opt for the base, naturally-aspired V6; mostly because it’s sort of wimpy on the torque side; just like all other base V6s in full-size pickup trucks.
Ford, therefore takes nothing away from the customer compared to a Chevy customer by offering two turbo-charged V6s except for one minor thing…Ford no longer offers a bigger V8 in an F150, but really, even though Chevy does technically offer a larger V8, they limit it so much that it receives less than a 10% uptake, so it really doesn’t matter much. Moreover, with respect to the 5.3L, Chevy is going to offer it with it’s most advanced form (DFM and 8-speed) only in the top two categories of trims; and even then it doesn’t get the ten speed, which is held out to only the top price category mated with the 6.2 and the 3.0 Duramax; whereas Ford offers their best stuff for everyone. And to make matters worse, Chevy just recently announced mpg; and after all that work for a lighter truck; after all that work for a more aerodynamic truck; after all that promised improvement in mpg using the next-generation cylinder deactivation, the 5.3L that only some customers get, achieves 1 mpg better in the city and 0 on the highway, coming up to only match Ford’s 5.0L that has no cylinder deactivation. This new system was supposed to rival downsized turbos, but only matches Ford’s 5.0. Then moving up to the 6.2 for the rich and the famous, that engine with the new cylinder deactivation, and mated to the ten speed, gains 1 in the city and loses 1 on the highway with no net improvement in fuel economy. And this is with no improvement in performance; not much improvement in capability even with a supposed lighter and more aerodynamic pickup and a more advance cylinder deactivation and 2 more gears. Conversely, Ford in 2018 improved mpg and performance in three out of 4 power trains simultaneously.
And then after all of that, Ford gives turbo choices; two of them. They both sell well; they both are mated to the ten speed; they both have dual fuel injection; they both can be configured to have better rated mpg than any other gas engine on the market, even base V6s. They both can be outfitted in even the lowest trim levels for 4 real choices. You say Chevy sells V8’s and use that as your mantra, but it was their choice to offer a turbo and everyone else sells V8s too. So they offer a turbo; make it standard in two specific trim levels; don’t allow it in the lower trim levels; give it pitiful capabilities; have it start at $38K and brag about that as if it were a good thing, and try to ensure that no one will buy it. Considering all of that, even though Chevy is calling it one of their 6 choices, which is laughable, because no one gets more than three choices in any particular trim (most trims it’s only two choices). They don’t really offer choice, which is what they said their customers asked for.
Both the 5.0 and Hemi do offer cylinder deactivation, and the chevy V’8s get better than EPA Estimates, Ford Ecoboost always get worst than EPA estimates, Chevy hasn’t announced their economy yet, and what we have seen was dug up from dealer sheets on the two models that will go to dealers first. My guess, these are what Chevy has passed with the EPA to get trucks into the hand of their employees for a final testing period ASAP.
history Lesson, 2012-2014 Ecoboost, 22MPH Highway, The 2014 5.3 Got 23MPG and and the 6.2 Got 22.
current ecoboost gets 25, exspect this 5.3 to make at least 26.
How do I come to that? a truck 10% lighter, 17% more aerodynamic and a motor system that is up to 21% more efficient cant possibly get the same mpg as the outgoing model
Anecdotal mpg observations and reviewers performing a one-time test using two different configured pickups from different brands and even fuelly is of all hold little value to me, because those reports are all over the map and nothing can be learned. None of this is nearly as scientific and as fair and as objective as EPA estimates, even as we complain about them. We certainly can’t be claiming one brand exceeds and another does worse based on rumor, word of mouth, or bias. FWIW, I’ve averaged 24 lifetime in a 2015 RCSB 2WD with the 2.7L rated at 19/26/22; a low of 21.7 and a bed of 26.5; measuring only tank- to- tank, hand calculated; more than 50 tanks measured. All tanks within the ratings. Computer averages 1.6 optimistic, but I report hand calculations.
If you look at F150, 2.7L (not the ones listed above 6,000 GVWR under a drop- down box); just regular F150 at fueleconomy.gov, you will find 20/26/22; not the lower 25 as you stated. The base is rated as high as 19/25/22; the bigger Ecoboost as high as 18/25/21; the 5.0 as high as 17/23/19. These are official on the gov’t website. The top three for F150 are The top three for all 1/2 ton with gas engines. The 5.0 beats all v8s except for Chevy’s eAssist that starts at $44.4K.
The info given to TFL truck regarding 2019 Silverado was Chevy folks; not window stickers. It is possible that some versions are missing EPA estimates, and it is true that the 2.7, the 4.3, and the 3.0 Duramax have not been announced, but the news we have so far is very disappointing to me. And so too Ram. I have a F150, but I was rooting for some real FE progress from Chevy and Ram instead of just bigger, more luxurious pickups, as if we need pickups to be even bigger and luxurious.
I understand that Chevy has AFM and Ram has it for Hemi, but dynamic skip fire was supposed to be a 15% savings for the 6.2 according to the developer Delphi. Cylinder deactivation has so far been mostly a bust based on all products using it so far.
Like I stated, those mpg are what the computer in vehicle read. Took 300mile highway trip. 6 hours straight. 2 people and 2 suit cases in bed. Tonneau cover over bed. 65-70 mph. 24 mpg. Around town for me is typical suburb. Stop lights and signs. Maybe 8-15 miles? 2wd, reg cab, short box. What else can I tell you? My S10 crew 4×4 got 12- 15 mpg around town.
Chevrolet should consider stealing Cadillac’s LGW twin-turbo 3.0L DOHC-4v V6 as it’s rated at: 404 / 301 @ 5700 (SAE certified) with 400 lbs-ft of torque @ 2500-5100rpm or just about the same as the L87 6.2L V8 for better mileage.
The 3.0 TT is NOT a truck engine. It may or may not get better fuel economy, but tuned to those power and torque figures I doubt it would last very long in truck service.
For the sake of MPG comparison, look at the 3.6 TT in the ATS-V vs the 6.2 LT1 in the Camaro (both on the same GM platform), which both produce about 460/460. The “big” “old” LT1 returns better EPA numbers than the small, high-tech V6, and is cheaper to produce.
Ok then comparing the old 6.2 to the new 6.2 they both get about the same gas mileage but I would imagine the old one is cheaper to produce. So my question is why bother with spending the time,money and effort to produce test and certify an engine that gives you so little benefit ?
Which is EXACTLY the point I tried to make earlier… AFM is, essentially, an “on/off” switch – four specific cylinders are always “on,” and the other four are either “on” or “off.” DFM, on the other hand, can operate on all eight, just one, any number between eight and one, and in any configuration there of…THIRTY SIX different potential combinations if you EXCLUDE random integration (skip two, then skip one, then skip three, then two, then five, etc., etc.). SUBSTANTIALLY more complex, costly and (potentially) problematic. And for what?
NOTHING. ZERO improvement in fuel economy, despite that fact the trucks are reported to be 400 pounds lighter AND the transmissions have two more gears. Common sense says if you lighten curb weight by 7% you should see a *similar* improvement in at least city numbers. Common sense also says if you add two gears you should see some improvement in highway numbers, if not across the board. GM has done both, AND added significant complexity to the engine, and the numbers are a wash.
I know, I know, the V8’s aren’t the “economy” engines. I don’t care. My point remains that a lot of costs and complexities have been added for no apparent benefit.
My thinking is you already have a proven engine in the current 6.2 ,add the proven 10 speed with the almost 400 pound weight lost and wala significant improvement in mpg. I guess their thinking is added complexity and cost in an unproven engine with the 10 speed and weight loss with minimal or no gain in mpg is the way to go. I am no engineer ,business man or marketing person but I like my idea better.
Sounds like a recipe made in Washington, DC.
What about improvement in performance like responsiveness and acceleration, or smoothness in power delivery? I don’t think that has been quantified yet, so your “NOTHING. ZERO improvement in fuel economy” is a bit reactionary and alarmist.
Is DFM really “SUBSTANTIALLY” more complex? It’s a different computer program, doing more math than the old one. Is the hardware required to turn a cylinder on or off significantly different? I doubt it, because that part isn’t complicated.
Better smoothness and responsiveness with just a software upgrade? Sign me up!
On city numbers, are they accelerating faster due to the weight loss? Common sense says yes. Maintaining the same fuel economy while accelerating faster and smoother would be a big deal, yeah?
On the freeway you’re either in a good ratio or not. A 4sp or 8sp can deliver the same overdrive ratio a 10sp can, so why would having more ratios help fuel economy? The additional gears help primarily in torque and acceleration, not maintaining speed when you’re not changing gears. You don’t get two more lower ratio overdrives going from 8->10 like the original 3sp-4sp change won you a first overdrive. 8 gears is already *a lot* of ratios to start with.
Same with weight loss really. The impact of the weight difference on maintaining highway cruising speed is negligible at this scale. Inertia is carrying you forward, gas is mostly only needed to overcome powertrain and aero drag. Aero has the biggest impact, gravity isn’t a big player.
“Common sense” lol. There’s lots of that to go around.
Sounds like they are trying to force everybody into the 4 cylinder and diesel models if they want better mileage. Or making the gas engines look bad forcing everybody to consider hybrids or full electric. There is no way on earth a truck weighting 400 LBS less with aerodynamic improvements, an increase in transmission gears and a new cylinder shutdown technology that claims to increase mileage 7% can produce these numbers on the 5.3 and 6.2 engines. It’s just not possible. Unless we are looking at a third EPA adjustment like in 2008 and 2016-2018 where MPG dropped on many models despite no changes to the drive-trains whatsoever.
Hows this for an idea? Currently The EPA test vehicles by throwing them on a dyknow (real close to actual real life right? when am I going to sit my truck on big drums and just spin tires?????) which probably reinforces the fact that these numbers are no where close to what will be observed, especially given that the new Silverado before the new DSF and gearbox is 10% lighter and 17% more aerodynamic. Why get EPA ratings now when you know the system would reflect poorly on them? you are in a time crunch to get the vehicles road legal for your employees to drive them in your testing period, and while you are trying to get accurate data from the epa you also need to be able to put models on dealers lots. this is not the “real” EPA numbers that will be posted to websites and sales brochures, but sufficient epa numbers to move forward.
See, I’m disappointed in the EPA numbers too. But here are the facts.
1. The EPA test cycle was recently changed, and reduced the fuel economy for many, many 2017 and newer model year vehicles. The new test cycle especially hurt trucks and larger SUVs because the new test cycle focuses on a new set of assumed driver behaviors and modern engine technologies like hybrids and turbocharging. I feel this is honestly the largest single reason we’ve seen a lack of EPA fuel economy improvement across a range of updated trucks – take both the 2019 Ram 1500 and the 2019 Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra as the main examples of this. Both saw essentially no fuel economy improvement despite losing weight, gaining new engine tech, gaining better/updated transmissions, and becoming significantly more aerodynamic.
2. Chevrolet and GMC trucks regularly outperform their EPA estimates in the real world, so long as you’re not flooring it from every stop sign. Generally speaking, your average 5.3L driver is going to get upwards of 2-3 MPGs better than the EPA says they should. The 6.2L is often an even bigger winner because you simply don’t need to dip too far into the throttle to get amazing response from that engine.
I got back from test driving one of the all-new 2019 GMc Sierra Denalis today. I’m dead serious when I say revving that engine to just 2200-2300 RPMs is plenty to get moving at a reasonable pace in the city. Anything higher is just overkill or showing off, because it has some insane power. I spend most of my day driving 5.3L and 6.2L trucks with the older transmissions and body styles, and dear lord what a difference! These trucks are shockingly quick and feel amazingly powerful.