We should expect a decent uptick in 2019 Silverado fuel economy when Chevrolet finally details the new full-size truck later this year. Thanks to Dynamic Fuel Management, or Delphi’s Dynamic Skip Fire technology, the 2019 Silverado’s 5.3-liter and 6.2-liter V8 engines could be at least 5 percent more fuel efficient.
Car and Driver dove into the system and detailed where Chevrolet could maximize its gains. It’s worth noting that the 2019 Silverado will not implement the technology exactly as how Delphi has created it. Delphi has shown the technology with a belt-based mild-hybrid system, which adds torque and widens the range in which Skip Fire works. Chevy’s system also features its own algorithm to work the cylinder deactivations.
The 2019 Silverado can run on as little as one cylinder, though, it’s unlikely that circumstance will ever occur. Instead, the system’s algorithm will consistently choose which cylinders will fire in order to maximize efficiency under load.
Perhaps the best news is that the change between cylinders won’t be felt, per a Skip Fire prototype. It’s unclear how the 2019 Silverado’s system will behave since its engineers have tinkered with it, but C/D reported a seamless transition in a prototype vehicle. The only noticeable difference was audible at times.
2019 Silverado fuel economy will also likely rise thanks to a weight reduction and improved aerodynamics. The full-size pickup dropped up to 450 pounds with its redesign.
Comments
Interesting that they decided not to opt for the mild hybrid system, especially on higher trim levels
They already have a mild-hybrid system in their trucks. Just because it wasn’t said at the auto show last month doesn’t mean that it isn’t going to be implemented.
Hopefully owners (if they don’t like the feature) will have the option to disable it 🙂
I love it and hope this spreads to other models and engines!
For the people who don’t like it are you willing to take responsibility for the v8 going by by?
A bit lower percentage than was reported earlier this year. I was really hoping to see the 5.3 at least come close to or match Ford’s 2.7 EB engine which is rated for 20/26 for RWD and 19/24 for 4X4. We will be lucky if it matches the bigger 3.5 EB engine for MPG which is 18/25 for RWD and 17/23 for 4X4. Lets hope they can do better, especially with the weight reduction. An eAssist mild hybrid version would get the best MPG of the gas engines, especially if tied to the base V6.
They 10-15% gains over a truck with no cylinder deactivation. Since GM trucks previously had AFM, the gain is smaller. From what I read years ago, this isn’t more complicated hardware wise than the previous system, just a better way of controlling it.
Sounds like this alone is good for 1mpg. I expect to see 2-3mpg gains over the current truck which is pretty good.
how many people that buy a pick up because of the MPG. ???
Those who bought and in some cases still hang on to their old S-10’s and Rangers. My 98′ S-10 2.2L gets 21-31 real world MPG, and I haven’t seen anything, yet that comes close. Till, then, I will continue to run the mileage on up on my old truck. It has given me almost 230,000 trouble free miles.
“nobody buys a truck for MPG” is the most infuriating and outdated argument against making trucks fuel efficient. No, I did not buy my truck with the expectation that it’s going to get the same mpg as a family sedan. But, if truck A gets 2 MPG better than truck B, then that gives me a reason to buy truck A over truck B – truck A is going to save me money.
This is the case even more so for fleet owners who operate large quantities of trucks. Small mpg improvements mean the fleet owners have lower costs and therefore greater profits. It’s not rocket science, improved MPG is a good thing in any class of vehicle.
you can get 2 more MPG just with driving habits. 2 different drivers can get 2 MPG difference. driving my 2013 Silverado 5.3 400 miles round trip to camp i can get 20 MPG and my grand son driving the same truck over the same route gets 18 MPG.
Ok, then with a truck that gets 2mpg better then your current truck those numbers would have been 22 & 20 MPG between you and your grandson…
it would mean about using 2 more gallons in a 400 round trip or about $5..
“how many people that buy a pick up because of the MPG. ???”
Lets see…
How about the people who manage fleets?
How about the independent contractors that factor total fuel costs into their operating costs?
How about the municipal fleets that are only allocated so much in an annual budget for fuel based on each vehicles total annual operating hours?
Just because you’re a slacker who uses a pickup for runs to Starbucks doesn’t mean actual people who work for a living don’t care about fuel economy.
the people you posted about buy their truck on bids and the lowest bid wins not the one that gets the best MPG. this is where the cost to operate comes in .
The bids are always weighted, and no one who has to sign off on those trucks and provide the paperwork for review is going to want to stand before a review and steering committee and say ‘they bought the most inefficient truck, but they bought the one with lots of chrome and a lift-kit”.
Those trucks are never bought simply on price alone. Multiple long-term cost projections are calculated and charted, of which those projections ALWAYS include total fuel consumption and total fuel costs. If they didn’t include the fuel consumption metric, they’re in no position to govern a fleet.
those MPG you see listed by the manufactures are not from on the road tests but from dyno cell runs so they mean very little in the real world. just ask the ford eco boost owners who are honest. the feds just made the manufactoires recalculate the MPG they are posting on the window sticker because buyers were complaining that they were not coming close to the posted MPG
Sounds like a band-aid. Just another gizmo to defeat. Too bad the improvement is so minimal. Instead of a 5% increase it should be 50. They need to get with the times and come up with something more efficient!
Funny, no mention of “Tula Technology” the company who pioneered the science behind individual cylinder control.
Delphi was just one of the investors. Could it be that Tula is behind the 48v system in the Ram as it covers that on it’s website also. https://www.tulatech.com/
Tula Technology claims up to 15% increase in fuel efficiency compared to a non-equipped engine and up to 7% on engines with current non-cylinder specific deactivation tech.
Give credit where credit is due!
The first gen AFM in the Silverado wasn’t the most reliable so while your saving a few bucks a tank, you could still have some huge unexpected repair bills…Like anything you just want to work as advertised so hopefully its reliable…
this 5% increase to me seems to be wrong mathematically. They claim at least 15% increase in economy. The AFM on the current generation provided a 5% increase of about 1mpg on original gen. That leaves 10% that should come from DSF. Also there might be further improvements to the engine such as port injection, increase compression, better valve timing etc… my guess is a 12-15% on the motor and 3-4 mpg improvement as well 30 hp and 30 tq
“improvements to the engine such as port injection”, (that’s funny) boy have times changed.
No really, while its realized there are drawbacks to both direct injection and port injection. Integrating the two of them together can solve their separate issues if it is implemented properly. It does add complexity and cost.
With the ever increasing cost of not only the purchase price, but also repairs. As Bacardi mentions, any savings per tank can evaporate faster then you can get your Auto Club card out of your wallet. But hey, if it adds horse power!
Chevrolet is going to have to increase power to compete with ford and i imagine that copying fords port injection strategy is the most likely. port injection does little for fuel economy, its more about performance of the motor. Personally i wish they would follow more in the footsteps of the high compression high output corvette motor that was discovered. Where they delayed the closing of the intake valves allowing for compression ratios around 15-16 and actuation of the fuel/air mixture around the valves created a port injection scenario without the extra 8-16 new injectors.
Sorry, Toyota was first to bring dual injection technology to the street about ten years ago. It has been used in drag racing for much longer then that. So, as for your GM copying Ford, not so much.
The “high compression high output corvette motor” (“that was discovered”, what do you mean discovered?) are you referring to the C7 ZR1? It has dual injection!
port injection would be copying fords move. Im talking about the cad drawings found in the patent office. It was along with some engine patents and featured a dual turbo/supercharger and a compression ratio of about 16:1
Is life too boring over at fordauthority jake? where there is no participation by the members or lack there of.
Ford had nothing to do with the advent of either direct or port fuel injection, or the clever minds that came up with putting the two together!
na i just check ford authority to see if GMauthority misses any truck news. all they talk about over there is the next bolt on for mustangs. ford has no contribution to port fuel injection, nevertheless, the new 5.0 includes it and now gets 400tq. Chevy will have to do something to keep competitive tq and power with the 5.3 and 6.2. easy route is copy the competition, but im hoping for something new and different
Just how many street rods (including the ’32 Ford to name Ford fanboys biggest ass thorn) are running around America with Chevy V8’s? Humorously, where the ’32 is concerned, probably more then ones with a Ford motor.
Care to compare the number of V8 powered boats around the WORLD that are powered by Ford motors vs GM?
Then there’s things.
http://www.chevyhardcore.com/tech-stories/engine/ls3-vs-coyote-budget-shootout-results-the-winner-is/
It’s the other way around. Ford copies Chevy. Chevy comes out with a V-8 engine A few years later Ford has a V-8 engine.
Chevrolet already offering that in the new ZR1 so I don’t know why it’s GM copying Ford.. Port and Direct Injection that is.. which I know Ford did that to their 5.0 in the mustang
I still think it’s good.. how is Ford with their V8’s or even Ram? They didn’t say the new truck is only getting a mile per gallon better they were saying that the new tech they got 5% gain which equals over a mile per gallon more. They also got a weight loss and more aerodynamic so that has to cycle in the with new mileage estimates also the new 10 speed for higher trims and most likely an 8 speed could take place more the 6 speed could be the base.
so for the numbers, fuel economy, gm was flirting the stat that experimental trucks got about 20% increase with dsf. Car and driver with Delphi believes that at LEAST 5% and more towards 10% without 48volt system ALONE. Testing of the new 10 speed showed a 9% increase in economy, and though epa testing has shown no advantage in dynos, 1-2 mpg gain is claimed with the new denali 10 speed. GM states the new aero on the Silverado is 7% more efficient and there is the 450lbs loss. All that combined with possibly better compression or some other tech could really boost the performance. For rough math, 1.05(DFS, though i think higher) X 1.09 (10 speed) X 1.07 (aero for highway and weight for city) = 1.22 or a total 22% increase. 4-5 mpg
Where did dual fuel injection come from?
http://cdn.speednik.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2017/12/mechanical-fuel-injection-fundamentals-0008.jpg
Nostalgia nitro dragster engine shown with hat and port nozzle distribution blocks and lines. Port nozzles are often put on a pressure poppet (brass poppet lower right of center photo) that holds them closed until engine speed increases. This provides more fuel pressure at low engine RPM for good response.
First manufacturer to incorporate Dual injection for use in a street legal, EPA certified passenger vehicle? As I have already stated, Toyota. The 2005 2GR-FSE engine!
But then again, Toyota copied good old American drag racing innovation!
Give credit where credit is due!