246,000 km on my 2014 Silverado with AFM. 5.3 litre engine with Zero engine problems, the truck runs amazing and still hauls my 29 foot travel trailer with no problems. Here is the catch! I complete all scheduled maintenance and change my oil with full synthetic every 5000 - 7000 km.
It won’t run amazing for much longer. 10 years and 150k miles is pretty much the limit. If I were you I tear the heads off, put regular lifters in and a nice fun cam before it grenades. Or sell that shit and make it someone else’s problem lol
2011 Sierra 5.3. 258k miles. No problems. Put a range afm delete on about 15k miles ago. You’re right about the secret: maintenance. And do it yourself so you know it’s done right.
I'll stick with my 2003 GMC 2500, 6.0L with 480LE. No mpg nannies, no traction control, no complications, just old school longevity it'll still be running for another 20 years.
I’ve been extremely happy with the 5.3 in my 2018 Silverado. I run a DFM muzzler and average 20.7 mpg in mixed driving. I can see 24+ on straight highway trips. Also, it has 173,000 miles now. Never had any lifter issues.
@@derrickschultz6871 I'm not saying that GM transmissions aren't problematic but the vast majority of issues you run into come from lack of maintenance. There's no such thing as "filled for life" on any fluid.
Nobody buys these anyway, they just lease for three years, all while under warranty, then turn them in. No repair cost during the warranty period, so the lifter argument is moot.
@@mikek5298And what do you think happens after they turn in the lease? The dealer sells them! The 5 year warranty transfers even if you sell it… You’re not very bright are ya?
Just hit 80k on my 2021 2.7 2wd. Love the truck. I have mentioned before that this is my sales vehicle and if I drive this at 56mph I easily get 28 plus mpg. I have actually gone over 600 miles on 22 gallons and rarely get average less than 25 mpg average. I put over 2000 miles a month and track all miles, gas used and servicing in a log due to my work mileage reinbursement. So I am very familiar with its habits. It also has 2000lb payload and tows my 7000lb Grand Design trailer. I find it fits my niche market or needs quite well. No problems yet what so ever. Safe travels!
Actually that is true as no one ever takes into account how much energy it takes to forge new parts when things do wrong. When a diesel DPF needs to be replaced it’s a costly venture as the DPF and our catalytic converters are full of precious metals. Engine failures, and there are a lot, cause a lot of pollution to make and replace. Then there is the poor fuel economy caused by these EPA regulations that cause MFGs to install these clean burning devices, that are causing more fuel to be burnt . More costs to the owners of vehicles.
@@TheGettyAdventures I agree and was thrilled to see it! Modern V8s aren’t what they used to be. My old 5.4v8 in my 2010 F150 would do 1075km/tank. My 2022 Coyote does 1300km/tank. Both on the highway obviously.
@@TheGettyAdventures my experience with the smaller engines is it really depends on the terrain of the place you drive in. I live in southern New Hampshire and work/have family in Massachusetts. My ford maverick gets a very meh 28-29 mpg highway with its little 2.0 turbo engine because all the hills just make that turbo spool up to keep momentum. Meanwhile by the time I reach MA, the terrain is nice and flat. I can get 38 mpg at the same speeds. I had a 5.0 explorer back in the day, I could get 24 mpg on the highway when I'd go to Boston (50 miles, 20 in NH, 30 in MA). However if I went north instead of south, that same 5.0 was getting me 16. It was a similar story with my 5.7 grand Cherokee. Low power cruising, they can do pretty well, but if you start to actually access that power, your efficiency goes down rapidly.
@@TheGettyAdventuresTough thing about these tests is weather being different and other factors can make a noticable difference even if you make most of the variables the same. If I were to compare fuel economy numbers on trucks I test them all in one with a group and switch drivers and take the average of them. Since that did not happen. Comparing these numbers on different days should be taken lightly. In my vehicles I can see a 2-3 mpg difference in two days in the same week while driving the same loop. On top, mpgs should only be compared after running an entire tank.
That's good enough to ignore the 3.0L duramax unless you are towing often. I might have to look into a base model double cab to replace my old 2500hd dmax
I love your channel and approach to how you test and talk about the vehicles. Other channels can only drive but can't actually explain anything mechanical other than brochure speak. Also love the quick intro to the vids. Keep it up man!
Active or dynamic fuel management is fine for people who buy truck new and use them for 3-5 years then get something new. That’s all GM cares about. Can’t blame them for that since repairs also make them money and it is better for fuel economy
I have a ‘20 Suburban with the 5.3 and 4wd. I lock the transmission to where it can’t go into 6th gear and and thus 4cyl mode. It consistently gets almost 20 mpg. We’re very happy with the mileage it gets.
Great channel and info. Family hauler is 09 suburban, had lifters go at about 120k. Truck has 200k now. Just upgraded to an expedition max with 3.5 eco boost.
Tow test: Seen the 2.7 holding its own at 8k loaded enclosed trailer trying to hold 70mph on hills. Now lets see the 5.3 loaded at 12k enclosed trailer. 1k below each max tow. See if that 5.3 will hold 70mph on hills then. And see how fast it hits 70mph from 35 mph.
I just ran 1200km on my At4 5.3 with the 10 speed and averaged 11.7L/100km. That's through Toronto and all the stop and go that comes with it. Yes I wish it didn't have DFM but it's been a good truck / engine for the 4 years I've had it. I change the oil every 6k and I think that helps with lifter issues.
Yup on my 15 Silverado 1500 I put on a RC 3.5 in suspension lift with 33in Toyo Open County AT3's and sitting at about 15mpg now. They get pretty good mpg stock, but the lift really hurts half ton gassers
you should look into smaller wheels, and lowering it if anything. lifts not only kill mileage they also kill drive train and suspension from the angles they're forced to be at.
Well, that seems like it was a pretty stupid thing to have done. So your point is....jack up your truck and put big tires on it and you will crap out your fuel economy? Most of us already know that. Right?
@@roberthenry9319 you would be amazed how many people dont know that until its too late, and dont care because the love the look of making a truck worse in every way
I have a 5.3 in my truck and I average 16.5 in town and 20 on the highway. I have found that the computer in mine is spot on with what I calculate. There is a part where is shows over the last 60 miles and I have gotten a best of 24.1 on that. I will say that mine is the Trail Boss which has off road tires and a factory lift. It also does not have the front air dam that the standard model has so I would expect it to be less. I don't need the rough tires that are on it now and will be changing these to a more road oriented tire when it's time to replace them. I have been able to get around 18-18.5 in town, but I really have to drive it with a purpose to achieve that.
One thing I recently found out on my 2.7 turbo max is that if the check engine light is on like it was for your last test the engine goes into a reduced power mode. I think that might have been why the acceleration test with the 2.7 hooked up to a trailer was so slow. I do like the 2.7 vs. the 5.3 at altitude above 5000 feet.
Very interesting. Also disappointing. You don't say where in the rev band the torque peak comes. That makes a difference. I had a custom ordered 89 Mercury Grand Marquis with the 351W and towing package. Torque peak was 390 at 2,200 rpm. The axle ratio was the "performance ratio" at 2.73:1. A 0.60 overdrive in the mechanical 4 speed auto. On the highway that 4,000 pound car with a 6,000 pound tow rating and a 2bbl VV carburetor used 7 litres per 100km. 40 miles to the Imperial gallon. One would have expected progress over the last 35 years. It seems, not so much.
I agree on the highway mpg; this has always been true, but the city mpg is usually terrible and the Achilles heel of the engine as it takes more gas to keep it running than to move the vehicle in city conditions. What surprised me is the city efficiency on the 5.3; that DFM is more effective than I thought, ignoring any lifter issues.
People often forget about transmission selection and final gears. Especially on trucks when you usually have two transmission options and multiple rear end options. Results can vary so much. And were they mentioning is some people have two different size gas tanks on the same model truck. And then there's aerodynamic drag differences...
My 2024 5.3l gets 23mpg with metal flowing through the engine! At 790 miles the filter was clogged with metal increasing the oil pressure at the pump but starved on the top side. Dealer said machining debris. All is fine get on your way. I dumped the next filter into a glass jar AND full of more shiny debris. But I still get 23mpg. How amazing is that?
20 mpg any day! 23 on a Sunday drive. I can feel the dfm running it vibrates the whole truck but the numbers skyrocket. I found between 1000 and 1500 rpm is when that system increases the mpg.Oh by the way top tier high test only. 17 mpg using garbage fuel!
It’s not the gas consumption I’d worry about with the 5.3L. It’s the oil consumption that’s the problem, not to mention that it’s way underpowered, too.
Variable lifters don’t collapse, which is why the V8 lifter issue does not affect the 2.7. It’s absolutely complex, it so is every engine on the market. If you think the V8 is much simpler, you haven’t done your research. If the old Windsor engine has a complexity of 10, the 5.3 has a complexity of 1000, and the 2.7 maybe more like 1,200, if that. The 5.3 is MUCH closer to the 2.7 in complexity then it is to a 30 year old V8 engine.
Our work trucks are 5.3’s but switching to the turbomax. Guys with the new engine are seeing virtually the same fuel economy. If you tow anything at all you can watch the fuel gauge go down on either engine.
I would be afraid of the cylinder deactivation in that truck it would ruin those lifters and blow that engine just keep the v8 a v8 don’t need all that extra crap
My 2021 5.3 (8-speed) does NOT have DFM and I get average of 19-20mpg on the highway and 16-17mpg in the city. Not terrible, not the best but I like knowing I don't have the increased risk of lifter failures.
@@gtrance3567 Apparently, I saw the window sticker for mine and immediately wanted it. I doubt they are as plentiful now, if even made anymore, due to silly regulation tightening.
I had a 5.3 with lifter issues and it was a 2012. Why haven't gm learned by now? I had a chevy express. By 100k miles it was ticking. It didn't have afm either.
@@gtrance3567 I think it's really a matter of all manufacturers cutting quality for costs and to appease garbage regulation, all brands are guilty of it.
GM probably did the development on the four over maybe 5 years - the early mpg looked good - they built the tooling - revisions happened, maybe emissions tweaks reduced the mpg - too late to try Plan B. The Ram Hurricane six is also no big mpg gain over a Hemi v8. The justification for the four might mostly be for emissions reasons the turbo four might adapt to a future hybrid
A friend of mine has a three or four year old GMC truck with the 5.3. He recently took a long trip across states where the speed limit was 80 but people typically drove 90 to 95. Running 90 to 95 he said he got 18 mpg. That seems amazing to me given the aerodynamics of a full size pickup.
I never thought I would say this, but I like Ford's Coyote better because it squeezes big power out of smaller cubic inches. If you have a problem with the Coyote, you don't have to take the heads off to fix a lifter.
Well done, people should know -in a nutshell- that smaller engines stress and strain more to produce that much power to match a v8, therefore the bad MPG, a V8 does that at ease
It's not really an issue if the motor is properly built for it though. The reason these smaller motors are less efficient is because forced induction means we can literally use 2-2.5x more fuel than a naturally aspirated engine of the same displacement, and we can maintain our optimal air fuel ratio. These motors aren't undersized at all. Whether you like the added complexity of a turbo and the idea of displacement on demand is a whole separate conversation.
Just got a 2024 silverado with the 5.3 and am getting similar results to you. This thing is a beast for fuel economy at highway speeds and has the power when you need it. I'd be curious how much different the loop would be if the DFM was deactivated. Does limiting the gear to 1 below top gear disable it like it does the older versions of this engine?
I am with D the previous writer ! The little bit of mileage gain is far out Weighed by the issues the 5.3 is having. I have the 2012 with the 5.3 and have 95,000 miles on it with no issues( knock on wood). It sounds like a lot of people are not getting close to that before troubles arise on the gen 3 engine.
Definetly better than the 2014 5.3 i drove for awhile, i wasn't able to drop under 14.1 liters :100km on the highway. I would be curious to see how much fuel efficient a 4.8 turbo version of this engine would be .
Not sure if they sell the nissan titan in Canada but it would be nice to see one of those. I know it'll be discontinued soon but for those of us looking at used trucks the info would be nice
Have you tried your fuel economy test with the trucks having their maximum payload? It would be a more fair comparison to do that because they are trucks and trucks are meant to carry loads.
I'm amazed people thought small turbo charged engines would be more fuel efficient than a modern V8. I guess I've been alive to long to fall for anything lol
I think part of the reason for the smaller turbo charged engines is that the exhaust gasses are hotter which allows GPF filters to work(they will be required after 2027) , which supposedly lowers thinks like nox and soot. similar to how modern diesels get less fuel mileage but have lower soot emissions but need hot EG temps to get the DPF to work efficiently.
You say that you've got the cruise set to 112 Kph on the freeway but I can clearly see in the video it's set to 90. What gives? Set it to 120kph/75mph, that is a realistic conservative freeway driving speed in the US and on Canada 1, in my experience. Even at 75 you'll still have people blowing by you at 85-90 or more. I would not want to go any slower than 75.
I have a 2012 GMC sierra 5.3 I was averaging 18 miles to gallon on interstate running 70 to 75. I had the four-cylinder mode turned off running the interstate at the same speed. I’m now getting 19 that is figuring it old-school away not by what the Truck says I’m getting
The 5.3 runs between 8 and 1 cylinder at a time, based on power need. That is not inefficient. That is the definition of efficient. Had a 2017 Silverado that ran on as few a 4 cylinders with the tow package and it ran 18-21 consistently on the highway.
@@leanlifter1 The only thing foolish is your description of a very sophisticated technology. I had not one issue with my 5.3 in nearly 90,000 miles of urban driving in LA, Denver, & Phoenix. And 2 trips from LA to Houston and back. And I drove all over Colorado.
You do know that EVERY fuel injected vehicle built in the last ten years stops sending fuel when going downhill, so it is running on 0 cylinders? Does that make it inefficient? Once a truck is moving on a flat level road at a slow speed, say 20mpg, it takes very little power to maintain that momentum; being a brick only becomes detrimental at higher speeds when you fight air resistance. A small single cylinder is more than enough to keep running at that speed, and running any other cylinders is just a waste of gas. This is why hybrids work, since at low speed a small motor can easily keep the vehicle moving and the engine can stay off.
@@Cloud30000 Very interesting. So always going downhill would be really efficient, right? But it is hard to always go downhill in most places. I have found that to be true, anyway.
AFM was never needed for the 5.3 to get good fuel economy. Gear ratios and the newer transmissions with more gears accomplish this without having to sacrifice engine reliability. The 5.3 is a great engine if you leave AFM out of it.
5.3 is not more efficient if it burns oil like crazy and motor blows up in less than 70,000 miles because the AFM lifters leave the chat! On a side note my 2001 ford supercrew 4.6 liter with box packed with full coolers and gear and 4 full size men on 700 mile trip to Canada fishing trips averaged 20-21 mpg and I don't drive like ole lady. 63-64 mph in 55 zone and 70-75 in 65 mph zone! And it doesn't burn oil or blown up lol! Efficient!
gm's board meeting went something like this... I know afm was a terrible thing we did but guess what instead of only using those same kifters in only four cylinders hear me out we will use the same ones in all eight cylinders yeah this is going to be great let's give ourselves all raises
The fuel management stuff they did for the 5.3 with GM hasn't done anything other then make the lifters fail earlier. I could see them going and doing this if it saved 9 percent line they said. But it hasn't. I do like some of the changes GM made to its engines and other than this and the start stop they would be good engines. The locking rings for their cylinders were an issue but that could have been fixed. I do think they would do better when giving the customers the options to have this technology if they wakt it with the cylinder deactivation and the stop start deactivation. I think they would last long if they have a switch to keep it on or off. They could also buikd a delete for these.
i think the issue was more to do with bad lifters than a bad design. my 2011 LC9 with AFM ran for 175k miles without any issues. I tuned AFM out then and it has gone 75k more miles with no issues. It did develop a small lifter tick at about 150k miles at cold start, but switching to Pennzoil Ultra solved that issue.
@bendino9016 Oil can make a big difference. I am not sure which company designs GM oil. But I do know Mobil One does Nissan. Some Nissan engines run am extremely low temperatures which something like Penzoil or Valvoline or Castrol GTX the full synthetics would burn hotter than what the engineers developed the engines too. It's like they want you to go to the dealership for everything. Like the stop start systems makes it so you have to go to the dealership just to change your battery and have your vehicle run right. They connect ot to the battery and they need to be programmed everytime. With Volkswagen you can lose 30 percent of your battery strength by not programming the stop start.
I have a 2021 Duramax 3.0. In town it gets 23.5 mpg or better. The freeway on long cruises gets 26.5 or better as i have a lead foot. Towing wise, much better than a 5.3, still get 17 mpg dragging 4500 lbs.
I have a 2022 GMC 4x4 crew cab with the 3.0 Duramax. In mixed driving I get between 24 and 25. On the highway with the cruise set to 70 I have no problem getting 32-33 mpg.
I think the Chevy version is rated at 1mpg better, but I can’t remember. It’s most likely a aerodynamics thing I’d guess. My 2021 LT trailboss 5.3 is rated 21mpg highway…
Hi Alex. What a tremendous surprise, and a very pleasant one at that. Unfortunately, all the savings they achieve through their AFM and/or DFM can go down the drain if the "lifters" fail and GM does not take the attitude of TOYOTA of assuming responsibility for failures from the design and engineering tests. That's right; very good performances in that 5.3 lts. Alex, I wish you could comment on the change of TOYOTA engines. THANK YOU very much and a HUG from CDMX; Mexico.
AFM doesn’t do much at highway speed, as the wind resistance is enough to require all 8 cylinders; it’s really for slower speeds where the truck doesn’t need the power to maintain current momentum. Try a long country road at 40mph with AFM on and off to see the difference it makes,
It's pretty impressive. I have a co-worker that has a 2019 crew cab Z71 with a 5.3, he frequently road trips to Maine and claims to get 23-24 on a regular basis. We went on a 45-minute highway ride for work, and he reset the gauge when we left and he got over 23 on that trip at about 80 mph. I was pretty impressed because my 4.0 V6 4Runner can't do that. Mileage drops like a stone after 65 -70.
Idk why people are confused why smaller engines get worse fuel economy in full size trucks, your putting a little car engine in a huge full size truck, of course the fuel economy isn’t going to be as good as a v8 moving the same size truck
My '17 with a 5.3 - the truck always over estimated the mpg by about 2 mpg. I traded it in with only 52k miles because I needed a 4wd. My '23 with the 2.7 usually over estimates by about .5 mpg As I said in another thread, my 2.7 gets better mileage in tow/haul mode. Idk why. Stock-ish 265/65/18.
Getting to within 0.5mpg is the best it can do, as the tire circumfrence is always changing as the tread wears down so no two tire rotations end up being the same distance. In addition, any time the tires slip or spin, the truck doesn’t know that so it adds that spin to the distance travelled when calculating mpg.
I find it very interesting that the GM trucks do this. you would think GM would want to actually do the opposite. make you think you are getting better mileage. But I certainly can't complain about it.
It’s to the manufacturer’s benefit to have cylinder deactivation so they don’t get punished by the EPA etc.And if you’re trading it in before it explodes you’ll benefit.But if you’re planning on driving it to-and past 500,000 miles (like you could a ‘99 5.3)I’m sure this new version of cylinder deactivation won’t be any better than the last.
You can always deactivate it for a few years and wait to see if anyone else reports the issue still present, then activate it again if it turns out the issues have been solved.
I personally don't think the AFM/DFM does jack for mileage. In my experience the ones i have had that is did a full AFM/DFM delete ( AKA cam, lifters and vlom removal) on did over 2mpg better on fuel after the delete just running on all 8 then it ever did when it could deactivate cylinders. Drove better too. I did this twice so i don't think its a coincidence.
@@johnandersonjjrthe only reason you would need the warrantee is if the DFM has issues, in which case you would hear about it by the 3 year mark and never activate it again. If the DFM does not have any issues in three years, then you should be good to use it; if the problems show up after 3 years, I would be surprised, but then anyone encountering the problem would also be out of warrantee so not much you can do but stop using it again when you hear about the issues and hope that you stopped in time to not deal with it.
I have a 2018 5.3 Silverado with the dreaded AFM, but I actually like it a lot, I haven’t had any lifter issues to speak of, and I really like the sound that the engine generates when four-cylinder mode - a satisfying deep rumble. All that being said I’m averaging 17.6 miles per gallon lifetime with 60,000 miles.
Just wanna say out of the hundreds if not thousands of 5.3 trucks I've had at work, I've yet to have on have a lifter failure. I would love to say ots due to maintenance, but these trucks at best are seeing 12k oil changes. I swear its due to the frequent hard throttle pulls amd well as highway making sure the lifters get a good workout
I have never…. In seven different cars had the computer accurately state the proper fuel economy, I have no clue why anyone pays any attention to that computer. The ONLY proper fuel economy test is miles divided by gallons at fill ups.
Towing is not a good test because it takes the same energy to pull anything regardless of the engine. In city and low impact driving the smaller engines will always be more efficient.
All government gas milage tests are done at 80 km an hour ,how is that fair when I had a 67 Buick wild cat that got 26 , my 2015 mustang GT with the 5.0 with the 6 speed manual trans gets 28 mpg , and even the older corvettes get 30 mpg.
Way above your capabilities but it would be really interesting to see a wind tunnel test to see how much the aerodynamics of different brands affect fuel mileage.
You’d have to figure out how to activate highway mode, as many trucks have extending front skirts and some even lower for better aero at highway speeds.
Nah. Don't need a wind tunnel. If your truck is a cab over 1957 Mack and your neighbor's truck is a Rivian, your neighbor will get better fuel mileage than you. See? Problem solved without the wind tunnel. Different brands really do affect fuel mileage.
I think if he puts a truck on film with a deleted DFM, the truck will get flagged and won’t be register-able anymore; he might even be subject to fines if he films himself knowingly drove the truck with DFM deactivated. It’s along the lines of a DPF delete, but less severe. Some stuff you advocate for, but don’t get caught doing it and certainly don’t give them evidence to use against you.
You can't really fully delete the DFM unless you replace the lifters, but not having DFM active and only running in 8 cylinders would be interesting. I bet the Mileage would not be far off.
I think the new prices MORE than negate the minor fuel savings you get. Unless you drive 50,000 miles a year, those extra 1-2 MPGs will never make the purchase worth it. And that’s not even considering potential reliability issues with the brand new technology.
246,000 km on my 2014 Silverado with AFM. 5.3 litre engine with Zero engine problems, the truck runs amazing and still hauls my 29 foot travel trailer with no problems. Here is the catch! I complete all scheduled maintenance and change my oil with full synthetic every 5000 - 7000 km.
It won’t run amazing for much longer. 10 years and 150k miles is pretty much the limit. If I were you I tear the heads off, put regular lifters in and a nice fun cam before it grenades. Or sell that shit and make it someone else’s problem lol
@@JoeyRiz I like playing with fire lol, I plan on finding the limit and when I do, a few power up’s will be added.
2011 Sierra 5.3. 258k miles. No problems. Put a range afm delete on about 15k miles ago. You’re right about the secret: maintenance.
And do it yourself so you know it’s done right.
@@acpropulsion6191 ya people don’t change their oil… it’s the number one problem but ya… have to delete that shit eventually
I am convinced that changing oil is the key.
I'll stick with my 2003 GMC 2500, 6.0L with 480LE. No mpg nannies, no traction control, no complications, just old school longevity it'll still be running for another 20 years.
Get rid of the TM and you'll get better MPG.
Mine is a few hundred miles shy of 400k miles. Never a problem. 2 water pumps, 1 tranny rebuild of course a alternator. All other general maintenance.
Here, here. 2006 5.3 vortec still hauling ass
gotta love when the V8 with nearly twice the displacement gets better fuel economy than the four cylinder 🤣
I’ve been extremely happy with the 5.3 in my 2018 Silverado. I run a DFM muzzler and average 20.7 mpg in mixed driving. I can see 24+ on straight highway trips. Also, it has 173,000 miles now. Never had any lifter issues.
How many transmissions?
These 5.3L love the highway MPGs!
@@derrickschultz6871 I'm not saying that GM transmissions aren't problematic but the vast majority of issues you run into come from lack of maintenance. There's no such thing as "filled for life" on any fluid.
@@ericmackison9517how do you change the fluid in a sealed lead acid battery that is filled for life and has no caps to access the fluid?
@@Cloud30000 why would you change battery fluid? It's sealed because it's absorbed and doesn't leak. It's also not an oil smart ass lol
That little bit of fuel saved is nothing compared to what it will cost to repair the engine when all those lifters and oil pump fail
Nobody buys these anyway, they just lease for three years, all while under warranty, then turn them in. No repair cost during the warranty period, so the lifter argument is moot.
@@mikek5298 source?
@@mikek5298And what do you think happens after they turn in the lease? The dealer sells them! The 5 year warranty transfers even if you sell it… You’re not very bright are ya?
And you think the turbo engine is going to be any more reliable lol
They have been so far@@billyzgoneape
Just hit 80k on my 2021 2.7 2wd. Love the truck. I have mentioned before that this is my sales vehicle and if I drive this at 56mph I easily get 28 plus mpg. I have actually gone over 600 miles on 22 gallons and rarely get average less than 25 mpg average. I put over 2000 miles a month and track all miles, gas used and servicing in a log due to my work mileage reinbursement. So I am very familiar with its habits. It also has 2000lb payload and tows my 7000lb Grand Design trailer. I find it fits my niche market or needs quite well. No problems yet what so ever. Safe travels!
I averaged in six months from purchase 20mpg over mixed driving. Back and forth from work 21 to 22 mpg. I am pretty impressed with this latest 5.3.
I just drove from PA to CT. Way up got 22 on the way back 24MPG. I have 2022 GMC 5.3 w/ 10 speed transmission.
These engine seem to do very well on the highway!
I truly believe all this emissions crap has only made vehicles extremely unreliable and ends up wasting more resources than if we never had it at all.
possibly, I would argue the general used of cheaper materials like plastics also contributes to these vehicles not lasting as long.
Actually that is true as no one ever takes into account how much energy it takes to forge new parts when things do wrong. When a diesel DPF needs to be replaced it’s a costly venture as the DPF and our catalytic converters are full of precious metals. Engine failures, and there are a lot, cause a lot of pollution to make and replace. Then there is the poor fuel economy caused by these EPA regulations that cause MFGs to install these clean burning devices, that are causing more fuel to be burnt . More costs to the owners of vehicles.
It has made Honda and Toyota less reliable . Everyone else has been incorporating new technologies all along.
Try getting your hands on a 3L duramax. Would love to see the fuel economy and pros and cons.
Exactly. I had an LM2 for 3 years and I average 27 over 50k miles. Best freeway was 34.6.
My coworker got over 30mpg in his 2021 GMC Sierra Elevation package with the 3.0L.
@@JLTPhotogwhat kind of mpgs does it get when the transmission is removed to replace the oil pump belt?
@@302Mustang13 🤣. Haters gonna hate. Does your Mustang go 150k miles without maintenance?
@@JLTPhotog Yup. Changed fluids. All I've ever done except one battery. No oil pump belt on my 5.0.
Even though I’m a Ford guy with a Coyote, I will applaud GM for this engine. 😊
I'd still buy the 5L, but it was pretty cool seeing the 5.3L wipe the floor with these smaller turbo engines.
@@TheGettyAdventures I agree and was thrilled to see it! Modern V8s aren’t what they used to be. My old 5.4v8 in my 2010 F150 would do 1075km/tank. My 2022 Coyote does 1300km/tank. Both on the highway obviously.
@@TheGettyAdventures my experience with the smaller engines is it really depends on the terrain of the place you drive in. I live in southern New Hampshire and work/have family in Massachusetts. My ford maverick gets a very meh 28-29 mpg highway with its little 2.0 turbo engine because all the hills just make that turbo spool up to keep momentum. Meanwhile by the time I reach MA, the terrain is nice and flat. I can get 38 mpg at the same speeds. I had a 5.0 explorer back in the day, I could get 24 mpg on the highway when I'd go to Boston (50 miles, 20 in NH, 30 in MA). However if I went north instead of south, that same 5.0 was getting me 16. It was a similar story with my 5.7 grand Cherokee. Low power cruising, they can do pretty well, but if you start to actually access that power, your efficiency goes down rapidly.
@@TheGettyAdventurestotally agree, no replacement for displacement!
@@TheGettyAdventuresTough thing about these tests is weather being different and other factors can make a noticable difference even if you make most of the variables the same. If I were to compare fuel economy numbers on trucks I test them all in one with a group and switch drivers and take the average of them. Since that did not happen. Comparing these numbers on different days should be taken lightly. In my vehicles I can see a 2-3 mpg difference in two days in the same week while driving the same loop. On top, mpgs should only be compared after running an entire tank.
TFL who? New subscriber. Love the channel so far.
@@EGGINFOOLS Andre is the one carrying that channel lmao. Nothing against everyone else. But you're not wrong though.
Appreciate it sir!
That's good enough to ignore the 3.0L duramax unless you are towing often.
I might have to look into a base model double cab to replace my old 2500hd dmax
I love your channel and approach to how you test and talk about the vehicles. Other channels can only drive but can't actually explain anything mechanical other than brochure speak. Also love the quick intro to the vids. Keep it up man!
Thank ya sir!
Active or dynamic fuel management is fine for people who buy truck new and use them for 3-5 years then get something new. That’s all GM cares about. Can’t blame them for that since repairs also make them money and it is better for fuel economy
I have a ‘20 Suburban with the 5.3 and 4wd. I lock the transmission to where it can’t go into 6th gear and and thus 4cyl mode.
It consistently gets almost 20 mpg. We’re very happy with the mileage it gets.
Great channel and info. Family hauler is 09 suburban, had lifters go at about 120k. Truck has 200k now. Just upgraded to an expedition max with 3.5 eco boost.
Tow test: Seen the 2.7 holding its own at 8k loaded enclosed trailer trying to hold 70mph on hills. Now lets see the 5.3 loaded at 12k enclosed trailer. 1k below each max tow. See if that 5.3 will hold 70mph on hills then. And see how fast it hits 70mph from 35 mph.
I just ran 1200km on my
At4 5.3 with the 10 speed and averaged 11.7L/100km. That's through Toronto and all the stop and go that comes with it. Yes I wish it didn't have DFM but it's been a good truck / engine for the 4 years I've had it. I change the oil every 6k and I think that helps with lifter issues.
It would be interesting to see the results on the 3.0 duramax.
Apples to watermelons comparison.
@@robedmund9948 Not really, both engines available in the same truck. Seems like a good comparison to me.
i put a level and 33’s on my 2023 5.3 and i went from getting 18-20 on stock to 10-12 with the tires.
I have 3.5 ECOboost 2022 f150. Level kit and 35s getting around 14 😊
Yup on my 15 Silverado 1500 I put on a RC 3.5 in suspension lift with 33in Toyo Open County AT3's and sitting at about 15mpg now. They get pretty good mpg stock, but the lift really hurts half ton gassers
you should look into smaller wheels, and lowering it if anything. lifts not only kill mileage they also kill drive train and suspension from the angles they're forced to be at.
Well, that seems like it was a pretty stupid thing to have done. So your point is....jack up your truck and put big tires on it and you will crap out your fuel economy? Most of us already know that. Right?
@@roberthenry9319 you would be amazed how many people dont know that until its too late, and dont care because the love the look of making a truck worse in every way
I have a 5.3 in my truck and I average 16.5 in town and 20 on the highway. I have found that the computer in mine is spot on with what I calculate. There is a part where is shows over the last 60 miles and I have gotten a best of 24.1 on that. I will say that mine is the Trail Boss which has off road tires and a factory lift. It also does not have the front air dam that the standard model has so I would expect it to be less. I don't need the rough tires that are on it now and will be changing these to a more road oriented tire when it's time to replace them. I have been able to get around 18-18.5 in town, but I really have to drive it with a purpose to achieve that.
THE 5.3 V8 IS A ROCK SOLID ENGINE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY KILLED BY ACTIVE FUEL MANAGEMENT.
One thing I recently found out on my 2.7 turbo max is that if the check engine light is on like it was for your last test the engine goes into a reduced power mode. I think that might have been why the acceleration test with the 2.7 hooked up to a trailer was so slow. I do like the 2.7 vs. the 5.3 at altitude above 5000 feet.
Fuel Economy is the LEAST of this engine worries. Let’s get those lifters to make it past 50K miles.
50k is fine. 10 years and 150k is the issue
@@JoeyRiz A lot of 5.3 V8’s aren’t even making it to the 50K mark from what I see on their Forums.
@@toddjohnson7787 ya and they are driven by people who change their oil every 12-15k miles lolol
It will make it past 50,000 mi. The question is will it get past 150,000 mi.
Very interesting. Also disappointing. You don't say where in the rev band the torque peak comes. That makes a difference. I had a custom ordered 89 Mercury Grand Marquis with the 351W and towing package. Torque peak was 390 at 2,200 rpm. The axle ratio was the "performance ratio" at 2.73:1. A 0.60 overdrive in the mechanical 4 speed auto. On the highway that 4,000 pound car with a 6,000 pound tow rating and a 2bbl VV carburetor used 7 litres per 100km. 40 miles to the Imperial gallon. One would have expected progress over the last 35 years. It seems, not so much.
I really enjoy your videos you put out . Thank you for your content and experience with diesel engines etc
Roy
Appreciate it sir!
lazy v8 with tall gears gets the best highway mpg's. I don't know why people keep ignoring it. my 30 year old z28 can do over 30mpg on the highway
I agree on the highway mpg; this has always been true, but the city mpg is usually terrible and the Achilles heel of the engine as it takes more gas to keep it running than to move the vehicle in city conditions.
What surprised me is the city efficiency on the 5.3; that DFM is more effective than I thought, ignoring any lifter issues.
People often forget about transmission selection and final gears. Especially on trucks when you usually have two transmission options and multiple rear end options. Results can vary so much. And were they mentioning is some people have two different size gas tanks on the same model truck. And then there's aerodynamic drag differences...
I drive 100 miles (mostly highway) a day on my 2.7, get up to 85-90, get around 17-18 mpg 19-20 if i slip stream from other cars
You should test the 3.0 diesels from each manufacturer.
Great head to head comparisons. Next the standard out put ram 3.0 hurricane.
We already know it get 💩 mpg
@@atg1338 I don’t care about the mileage per se. I just want the comparison for everything. I guess I should’ve said that.
@@marshallgerow3277 If you had a construction company and owned more then 1 Truck you would care about mpg
@@atg1338 yeah I probably would, but I don’t.
As far as DFM, focus on the positive Alex! The late Bob Ross said it best, GM doesn't make mistakes, just happy little accidents. 😂
lol Love it!
My 2024 5.3l gets 23mpg with metal flowing through the engine! At 790 miles the filter was clogged with metal increasing the oil pressure at the pump but starved on the top side. Dealer said machining debris. All is fine get on your way. I dumped the next filter into a glass jar AND full of more shiny debris. But I still get 23mpg. How amazing is that?
@@mitchrothermel8157 BS you are not even close to a real world situation…go sit down
20 mpg any day! 23 on a Sunday drive. I can feel the dfm running it vibrates the whole truck but the numbers skyrocket. I found between 1000 and 1500 rpm is when that system increases the mpg.Oh by the way top tier high test only. 17 mpg using garbage fuel!
It’s not the gas consumption I’d worry about with the 5.3L. It’s the oil consumption that’s the problem, not to mention that it’s way underpowered, too.
Its what expected, don't know why people would be surprised. 2.7 makes no sense to me, but GM now gm has way over hyped it.
it's emissions. get used to it
Less emissions and no lifters to fail.
@@gtrance3567 The 2.7 still has varriable displacement, it also has varriable lift, the 2.7 is one of the most complex engines on the market.
Variable lifters don’t collapse, which is why the V8 lifter issue does not affect the 2.7.
It’s absolutely complex, it so is every engine on the market. If you think the V8 is much simpler, you haven’t done your research.
If the old Windsor engine has a complexity of 10, the 5.3 has a complexity of 1000, and the 2.7 maybe more like 1,200, if that. The 5.3 is MUCH closer to the 2.7 in complexity then it is to a 30 year old V8 engine.
@@Cloud30000 The varriable lift sliding shafts do screw up, the 2.7 is already having this problem.
Our work trucks are 5.3’s but switching to the turbomax. Guys with the new engine are seeing virtually the same fuel economy. If you tow anything at all you can watch the fuel gauge go down on either engine.
I would be afraid of the cylinder deactivation in that truck it would ruin those lifters and blow that engine just keep the v8 a v8 don’t need all that extra crap
If they want to exist in todays trucks, they do
Had over 20 5.3 motors and have never had a problem... transmission problems yes but not motor issues.
My 2021 5.3 (8-speed) does NOT have DFM and I get average of 19-20mpg on the highway and 16-17mpg in the city. Not terrible, not the best but I like knowing I don't have the increased risk of lifter failures.
Do some models not have a dfm?
@@gtrance3567 Apparently, I saw the window sticker for mine and immediately wanted it. I doubt they are as plentiful now, if even made anymore, due to silly regulation tightening.
I had a 5.3 with lifter issues and it was a 2012. Why haven't gm learned by now? I had a chevy express. By 100k miles it was ticking. It didn't have afm either.
@@occckid123 I think the problem is brand loyalists that keep buying gm.
@@gtrance3567 I think it's really a matter of all manufacturers cutting quality for costs and to appease garbage regulation, all brands are guilty of it.
GM probably did the development on the four over maybe 5 years - the early mpg looked good - they built the tooling - revisions happened, maybe emissions tweaks reduced the mpg - too late to try Plan B. The Ram Hurricane six is also no big mpg gain over a Hemi v8. The justification for the four might mostly be for emissions reasons the turbo four might adapt to a future hybrid
A friend of mine has a three or four year old GMC truck with the 5.3. He recently took a long trip across states where the speed limit was 80 but people typically drove 90 to 95. Running 90 to 95 he said he got 18 mpg. That seems amazing to me given the aerodynamics of a full size pickup.
He is lying...
I never thought I would say this, but I like Ford's Coyote better because it squeezes big power out of smaller cubic inches. If you have a problem with the Coyote, you don't have to take the heads off to fix a lifter.
Well done, people should know -in a nutshell- that smaller engines stress and strain more to produce that much power to match a v8, therefore the bad MPG, a V8 does that at ease
It's not really an issue if the motor is properly built for it though. The reason these smaller motors are less efficient is because forced induction means we can literally use 2-2.5x more fuel than a naturally aspirated engine of the same displacement, and we can maintain our optimal air fuel ratio. These motors aren't undersized at all.
Whether you like the added complexity of a turbo and the idea of displacement on demand is a whole separate conversation.
Really enjoy your videos on these engines. Would love to see one comparing the Ford 2.7 ve the GM 2.7
Just got a 2024 silverado with the 5.3 and am getting similar results to you. This thing is a beast for fuel economy at highway speeds and has the power when you need it. I'd be curious how much different the loop would be if the DFM was deactivated. Does limiting the gear to 1 below top gear disable it like it does the older versions of this engine?
I am with D the previous writer ! The little bit of mileage gain is far out Weighed by the issues the 5.3 is having. I have the 2012 with the 5.3 and have 95,000 miles on it with no issues( knock on wood). It sounds like a lot of people are not getting close to that before troubles arise on the gen 3 engine.
Had over 20 of them with no problems
ya the lifters seem to be haunting these engines, hard to tell exactly what the true failure rate is but certainly something to keep an eye on.
@@TheGettyAdventures such internet bull💩
I'll stick with my 5.6 without the garbage.. fuel economy is not very high on my list of things to consider TBH.
Definetly better than the 2014 5.3 i drove for awhile, i wasn't able to drop under 14.1 liters :100km on the highway. I would be curious to see how much fuel efficient a 4.8 turbo version of this engine would be .
Not sure if they sell the nissan titan in Canada but it would be nice to see one of those. I know it'll be discontinued soon but for those of us looking at used trucks the info would be nice
Awesome video as usual! What was the axle ratio? My older Z71 got good mpgs with 3.73 gears front and back. Very reliable engine.
Have you tried your fuel economy test with the trucks having their maximum payload? It would be a more fair comparison to do that because they are trucks and trucks are meant to carry loads.
Love the "8 sets of collapsible lifters."😂
I barely get over 20 mpg in my ‘23 Tacoma. Sometimes it’s about how hard the engine is working.
I'm amazed people thought small turbo charged engines would be more fuel efficient than a modern V8. I guess I've been alive to long to fall for anything lol
Since this video is about precise measurements, I would suggest using cubic inches over liters.
I think part of the reason for the smaller turbo charged engines is that the exhaust gasses are hotter which allows GPF filters to work(they will be required after 2027) , which supposedly lowers thinks like nox and soot. similar to how modern diesels get less fuel mileage but have lower soot emissions but need hot EG temps to get the DPF to work efficiently.
That is correct; the turbo engines are more about emissions regulations than mpg numbers due to CAFE.
Yes you are not wrong. and the GPFs are coming, they are already in Europe. going to be a nightmare most likely.
@@TheGettyAdventures yah, definitely not looking forward to it
Great results. Now we need the 6.2 to see if it beats the 5.3.
My 6.2 Denali beats my buddies 5.3 on a run every time,
You say that you've got the cruise set to 112 Kph on the freeway but I can clearly see in the video it's set to 90. What gives?
Set it to 120kph/75mph, that is a realistic conservative freeway driving speed in the US and on Canada 1, in my experience. Even at 75 you'll still have people blowing by you at 85-90 or more. I would not want to go any slower than 75.
I have a 2012 GMC sierra 5.3 I was averaging 18 miles to gallon on interstate running 70 to 75. I had the four-cylinder mode turned off running the interstate at the same speed. I’m now getting 19 that is figuring it old-school away not by what the Truck says I’m getting
I thought the same thing with the Ford being the most efficient engine out their for fuel.
The 5.3 runs between 8 and 1 cylinder at a time, based on power need. That is not inefficient. That is the definition of efficient. Had a 2017 Silverado that ran on as few a 4 cylinders with the tow package and it ran 18-21 consistently on the highway.
Moving a massive brick down the road on only one 650cc motor is terrible and foolish not efficient.
@@leanlifter1 The only thing foolish is your description of a very sophisticated technology. I had not one issue with my 5.3 in nearly 90,000 miles of urban driving in LA, Denver, & Phoenix. And 2 trips from LA to Houston and back. And I drove all over Colorado.
@@MogulFarmer v8 is the most balanced and efficient designs
You do know that EVERY fuel injected vehicle built in the last ten years stops sending fuel when going downhill, so it is running on 0 cylinders? Does that make it inefficient?
Once a truck is moving on a flat level road at a slow speed, say 20mpg, it takes very little power to maintain that momentum; being a brick only becomes detrimental at higher speeds when you fight air resistance. A small single cylinder is more than enough to keep running at that speed, and running any other cylinders is just a waste of gas. This is why hybrids work, since at low speed a small motor can easily keep the vehicle moving and the engine can stay off.
@@Cloud30000 Very interesting. So always going downhill would be really efficient, right? But it is hard to always go downhill in most places. I have found that to be true, anyway.
Thanks for the video. Was the truck a 4x4 or 2wd? Thanks and God bless.
If I was driving a powerful turbo engine I would never get EPA rating as I would have a heavy foot. Zoom zoom.
AFM was never needed for the 5.3 to get good fuel economy. Gear ratios and the newer transmissions with more gears accomplish this without having to sacrifice engine reliability. The 5.3 is a great engine if you leave AFM out of it.
5.3 is not more efficient if it burns oil like crazy and motor blows up in less than 70,000 miles because the AFM lifters leave the chat! On a side note my 2001 ford supercrew 4.6 liter with box packed with full coolers and gear and 4 full size men on 700 mile trip to Canada fishing trips averaged 20-21 mpg and I don't drive like ole lady. 63-64 mph in 55 zone and 70-75 in 65 mph zone! And it doesn't burn oil or blown up lol! Efficient!
65 hilarious and I call BS on your mileage
Get a 3.0 duramax for this one.. It'll easily win.
But the duramax costs more to fill up and oil changes cost more
It depends on the hit it takes in slow stop and go city traffic; it might negate the gains it gets on the highway.
gm's board meeting went something like this... I know afm was a terrible thing we did but guess what instead of only using those same kifters in only four cylinders hear me out we will use the same ones in all eight cylinders yeah this is going to be great let's give ourselves all raises
The fuel management stuff they did for the 5.3 with GM hasn't done anything other then make the lifters fail earlier. I could see them going and doing this if it saved 9 percent line they said. But it hasn't. I do like some of the changes GM made to its engines and other than this and the start stop they would be good engines. The locking rings for their cylinders were an issue but that could have been fixed. I do think they would do better when giving the customers the options to have this technology if they wakt it with the cylinder deactivation and the stop start deactivation. I think they would last long if they have a switch to keep it on or off. They could also buikd a delete for these.
i think the issue was more to do with bad lifters than a bad design. my 2011 LC9 with AFM ran for 175k miles without any issues. I tuned AFM out then and it has gone 75k more miles with no issues. It did develop a small lifter tick at about 150k miles at cold start, but switching to Pennzoil Ultra solved that issue.
@bendino9016 Oil can make a big difference. I am not sure which company designs GM oil. But I do know Mobil One does Nissan. Some Nissan engines run am extremely low temperatures which something like Penzoil or Valvoline or Castrol GTX the full synthetics would burn hotter than what the engineers developed the engines too. It's like they want you to go to the dealership for everything. Like the stop start systems makes it so you have to go to the dealership just to change your battery and have your vehicle run right. They connect ot to the battery and they need to be programmed everytime. With Volkswagen you can lose 30 percent of your battery strength by not programming the stop start.
I have found that to get the best MPG on any truck is to park it for days, weeks or even months and use something else.
That's my policy, then the mpg doesn't matter.
I have a 2021 Duramax 3.0. In town it gets 23.5 mpg or better. The freeway on long cruises gets 26.5 or better as i have a lead foot. Towing wise, much better than a 5.3, still get 17 mpg dragging 4500 lbs.
I have a 2022 GMC 4x4 crew cab with the 3.0 Duramax. In mixed driving I get between 24 and 25. On the highway with the cruise set to 70 I have no problem getting 32-33 mpg.
I think the Chevy version is rated at 1mpg better, but I can’t remember. It’s most likely a aerodynamics thing I’d guess. My 2021 LT trailboss 5.3 is rated 21mpg highway…
interesting your trailboss is rated 21. with the 2 inch lift you would think it would suffer EPA ratings
Would love to see these tests done on a midsize pickup trucks
Hi Alex.
What a tremendous surprise, and a very pleasant one at that. Unfortunately, all the savings they achieve through their AFM and/or DFM can go down the drain if the "lifters" fail and GM does not take the attitude of TOYOTA of assuming responsibility for failures from the design and engineering tests. That's right; very good performances in that 5.3 lts. Alex, I wish you could comment on the change of TOYOTA engines. THANK YOU very much and a HUG from CDMX; Mexico.
Based on this, reliability and price i'd have to check out the 3.5 ecoboost or the Coyote.
I have a 2018 5.3. My trips from NY to Ohio at 75 mph I got 20 mpg. I tried this with an AFM disabler and got 19 going and 20 coming back.
AFM doesn’t do much at highway speed, as the wind resistance is enough to require all 8 cylinders; it’s really for slower speeds where the truck doesn’t need the power to maintain current momentum.
Try a long country road at 40mph with AFM on and off to see the difference it makes,
Just drove 1200 miles up and down the east cost with my 24' 5.3. Got 21mpg average. 24mpg best and 18mpg worst.
It's pretty impressive. I have a co-worker that has a 2019 crew cab Z71 with a 5.3, he frequently road trips to Maine and claims to get 23-24 on a regular basis. We went on a 45-minute highway ride for work, and he reset the gauge when we left and he got over 23 on that trip at about 80 mph. I was pretty impressed because my 4.0 V6 4Runner can't do that. Mileage drops like a stone after 65 -70.
BS impossible try again
With the least power tested it should be good on fuel. Upper ball joints will fail and send you into to the ditch either way.
Idk why people are confused why smaller engines get worse fuel economy in full size trucks, your putting a little car engine in a huge full size truck, of course the fuel economy isn’t going to be as good as a v8 moving the same size truck
Will you be getting your hands on a powerboost anytime soon?
I have a 2011 sierra with a 5.3. 130k miles no engine problems yet. Only get about 15 mpg though.😅
My '17 with a 5.3 - the truck always over estimated the mpg by about 2 mpg. I traded it in with only 52k miles because I needed a 4wd.
My '23 with the 2.7 usually over estimates by about .5 mpg
As I said in another thread, my 2.7 gets better mileage in tow/haul mode. Idk why. Stock-ish 265/65/18.
Getting to within 0.5mpg is the best it can do, as the tire circumfrence is always changing as the tread wears down so no two tire rotations end up being the same distance.
In addition, any time the tires slip or spin, the truck doesn’t know that so it adds that spin to the distance travelled when calculating mpg.
I find it very interesting that the GM trucks do this. you would think GM would want to actually do the opposite. make you think you are getting better mileage. But I certainly can't complain about it.
Oh.
It’s to the manufacturer’s benefit to have cylinder deactivation so they don’t get punished by the EPA etc.And if you’re trading it in before it explodes you’ll benefit.But if you’re planning on driving it to-and past 500,000 miles (like you could a ‘99 5.3)I’m sure this new version of cylinder deactivation won’t be any better than the last.
You can always deactivate it for a few years and wait to see if anyone else reports the issue still present, then activate it again if it turns out the issues have been solved.
I personally don't think the AFM/DFM does jack for mileage. In my experience the ones i have had that is did a full AFM/DFM delete ( AKA cam, lifters and vlom removal) on did over 2mpg better on fuel after the delete just running on all 8 then it ever did when it could deactivate cylinders. Drove better too. I did this twice so i don't think its a coincidence.
@@Cloud30000 yeah after the warranty is up but ( then)that’s in the danger (time/mileage)zone
@@johnandersonjjrthe only reason you would need the warrantee is if the DFM has issues, in which case you would hear about it by the 3 year mark and never activate it again. If the DFM does not have any issues in three years, then you should be good to use it; if the problems show up after 3 years, I would be surprised, but then anyone encountering the problem would also be out of warrantee so not much you can do but stop using it again when you hear about the issues and hope that you stopped in time to not deal with it.
well that is very nice! thx for your testing!
I believe the results V8s do get almost the same gas mileage as a turbo v6 I've had both vehicles ford and ram
I have a 2018 5.3 Silverado with the dreaded AFM, but I actually like it a lot, I haven’t had any lifter issues to speak of, and I really like the sound that the engine generates when four-cylinder mode - a satisfying deep rumble. All that being said I’m averaging 17.6 miles per gallon lifetime with 60,000 miles.
Just wanna say out of the hundreds if not thousands of 5.3 trucks I've had at work, I've yet to have on have a lifter failure. I would love to say ots due to maintenance, but these trucks at best are seeing 12k oil changes. I swear its due to the frequent hard throttle pulls amd well as highway making sure the lifters get a good workout
the extended oil changes are wild on all engines. but very interesting you haven't seen any lifter failures.
I have never…. In seven different cars had the computer accurately state the proper fuel economy, I have no clue why anyone pays any attention to that computer. The ONLY proper fuel economy test is miles divided by gallons at fill ups.
Also, it didn't have a real gas cap. What's up with that?
I get 26.7 with my 2014 5.3 2wd silverado crew cab if I drive on the freeway long enough. But thats about as close as I get to 27. No higher.
You must have been limiting yourself to 65mph to get those numbers.
@Cloud30000 65 & 70. Couldn't believe it myself. Had to take a picture for proof.
Towing is not a good test because it takes the same energy to pull anything regardless of the engine. In city and low impact driving the smaller engines will always be more efficient.
All government gas milage tests are done at 80 km an hour ,how is that fair when I had a 67 Buick wild cat that got 26 , my 2015 mustang GT with the 5.0 with the 6 speed manual trans gets 28 mpg , and even the older corvettes get 30 mpg.
As long as it works right , repairs are a nightmare .
Now do the 5th and fourth gen rams. V6 and v8
What about the straight 6?
4th gen? Are we testing 10 year old models now? If so, I have a large list I’d like to add.
@@Cloud30000 I meant the ram classic models that can be bought new.
Way above your capabilities but it would be really interesting to see a wind tunnel test to see how much the aerodynamics of different brands affect fuel mileage.
You’d have to figure out how to activate highway mode, as many trucks have extending front skirts and some even lower for better aero at highway speeds.
Nah. Don't need a wind tunnel. If your truck is a cab over 1957 Mack and your neighbor's truck is a Rivian, your neighbor will get better fuel mileage than you. See? Problem solved without the wind tunnel. Different brands really do affect fuel mileage.
I would like to know the rear gear ratio on all these trucks.
It would be nice to see it tested again with the DFM deleted.
I think if he puts a truck on film with a deleted DFM, the truck will get flagged and won’t be register-able anymore; he might even be subject to fines if he films himself knowingly drove the truck with DFM deactivated.
It’s along the lines of a DPF delete, but less severe. Some stuff you advocate for, but don’t get caught doing it and certainly don’t give them evidence to use against you.
You can't really fully delete the DFM unless you replace the lifters, but not having DFM active and only running in 8 cylinders would be interesting. I bet the Mileage would not be far off.
@@Cloud30000 So now we have to worry about the DFM police?
Please do a video on GM 6.0 vortec engines!?!!!
It's accurate, I can pull 28 in my 2019 still and that's with a slight tune and AFM turned off. lol
Wild to see how efficient these engines are.
What was the rear- end ratio in this particular truck?
Lets see the 3.0 duramax
time to test ram i guess, tho the cost of the newer trucks almost negates the fuel savings imo
I think the new prices MORE than negate the minor fuel savings you get. Unless you drive 50,000 miles a year, those extra 1-2 MPGs will never make the purchase worth it. And that’s not even considering potential reliability issues with the brand new technology.