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.
@JoeyRiz
Ай бұрын
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
@1977hansol
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@acpropulsion6191
Ай бұрын
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.
@JoeyRiz
Ай бұрын
@@acpropulsion6191 ya people don’t change their oil… it’s the number one problem but ya… have to delete that shit eventually
@tuffr2
21 күн бұрын
I am convinced that changing oil is the key.
@namegoeshere2903
Ай бұрын
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.
@raylaux8295
Ай бұрын
Get rid of the TM and you'll get better MPG.
@4673962
Ай бұрын
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.
@brandonwomack7474
Ай бұрын
Here, here. 2006 5.3 vortec still hauling ass
@jasongalligan6424
Ай бұрын
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!
@davidjernigan8161
Ай бұрын
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
@mikek5298
Ай бұрын
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.
@firstlast---
Ай бұрын
@@mikek5298 source?
@Lq32332
Ай бұрын
@@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?
@billyzgoneape
Ай бұрын
And you think the turbo engine is going to be any more reliable lol
@robertchapman4488
Ай бұрын
They have been so far@@billyzgoneape
@tarawmaria
Ай бұрын
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.
@TheSlugger76
Ай бұрын
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.
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
These engine seem to do very well on the highway!
@coryw.9086
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
How many transmissions?
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
These 5.3L love the highway MPGs!
@ericmackison9517
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
@@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?
@ericmackison9517
Ай бұрын
@@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
@imafarmboy2
Ай бұрын
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.
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
possibly, I would argue the general used of cheaper materials like plastics also contributes to these vehicles not lasting as long.
@robm3357
Ай бұрын
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.
@paulkeddy7656
Ай бұрын
It has made Honda and Toyota less reliable . Everyone else has been incorporating new technologies all along.
@busterscrugs
Ай бұрын
gotta love when the V8 with nearly twice the displacement gets better fuel economy than the four cylinder 🤣
@danraby4344
Ай бұрын
Try getting your hands on a 3L duramax. Would love to see the fuel economy and pros and cons.
@JLTPhotog
Ай бұрын
Exactly. I had an LM2 for 3 years and I average 27 over 50k miles. Best freeway was 34.6.
@Tylnorton
Ай бұрын
My coworker got over 30mpg in his 2021 GMC Sierra Elevation package with the 3.0L.
@302Mustang13
Ай бұрын
@@JLTPhotogwhat kind of mpgs does it get when the transmission is removed to replace the oil pump belt?
@JLTPhotog
Ай бұрын
@@302Mustang13 🤣. Haters gonna hate. Does your Mustang go 150k miles without maintenance?
@302Mustang13
Ай бұрын
@@JLTPhotog Yup. Changed fluids. All I've ever done except one battery. No oil pump belt on my 5.0.
@Michael_Livingstone
Ай бұрын
Even though I’m a Ford guy with a Coyote, I will applaud GM for this engine. 😊
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
I'd still buy the 5L, but it was pretty cool seeing the 5.3L wipe the floor with these smaller turbo engines.
@Michael_Livingstone
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@heroofharo
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@travisharms9772
Ай бұрын
@@TheGettyAdventurestotally agree, no replacement for displacement!
@302Mustang13
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@ericj810
Ай бұрын
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.
@hitempguy
Ай бұрын
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
@robertyoung8289
Ай бұрын
TFL who? New subscriber. Love the channel so far.
@Tylnorton
Ай бұрын
@@EGGINFOOLS Andre is the one carrying that channel lmao. Nothing against everyone else. But you're not wrong though.
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
Appreciate it sir!
@EGGINFOOLS
Ай бұрын
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!
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
Thank ya sir!
@JoeyRiz
Ай бұрын
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
@joeapplebaum3763
28 күн бұрын
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.
@mcdingus9840
Ай бұрын
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.
@SmitHVAC.
Ай бұрын
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.
@curtshelp6170
Ай бұрын
It would be interesting to see the results on the 3.0 duramax.
@robedmund9948
Ай бұрын
Apples to watermelons comparison.
@edwardpate6128
Ай бұрын
@@robedmund9948 Not really, both engines available in the same truck. Seems like a good comparison to me.
@fscottgray9784
Ай бұрын
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.
@graysonnewberry2647
Ай бұрын
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.
@9663mu
Ай бұрын
I have 3.5 ECOboost 2022 f150. Level kit and 35s getting around 14 😊
@mcmehlen
Ай бұрын
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
@bradhaines3142
Ай бұрын
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.
@roberthenry9319
Ай бұрын
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?
@bradhaines3142
Ай бұрын
@@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
@CraigSmith568
Ай бұрын
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.
@egresk1
Ай бұрын
THE 5.3 V8 IS A ROCK SOLID ENGINE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY KILLED BY ACTIVE FUEL MANAGEMENT.
@toddjohnson7787
Ай бұрын
Fuel Economy is the LEAST of this engine worries. Let’s get those lifters to make it past 50K miles.
@JoeyRiz
Ай бұрын
50k is fine. 10 years and 150k is the issue
@toddjohnson7787
Ай бұрын
@@JoeyRiz A lot of 5.3 V8’s aren’t even making it to the 50K mark from what I see on their Forums.
@JoeyRiz
Ай бұрын
@@toddjohnson7787 ya and they are driven by people who change their oil every 12-15k miles lolol
@DanBlackRacing
5 күн бұрын
It will make it past 50,000 mi. The question is will it get past 150,000 mi.
@michaeltutty1540
Ай бұрын
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.
@BearPapa49
Ай бұрын
I really enjoy your videos you put out . Thank you for your content and experience with diesel engines etc Roy
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
Appreciate it sir!
@olov244
Ай бұрын
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
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
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.
@DanBlackRacing
5 күн бұрын
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...
@Cuhh346
Ай бұрын
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
@monunyabidness5949
20 күн бұрын
You should test the 3.0 diesels from each manufacturer.
@marshallgerow3277
Ай бұрын
Great head to head comparisons. Next the standard out put ram 3.0 hurricane.
@atg1338
Ай бұрын
We already know it get 💩 mpg
@marshallgerow3277
Ай бұрын
@@atg1338 I don’t care about the mileage per se. I just want the comparison for everything. I guess I should’ve said that.
@atg1338
Ай бұрын
@@marshallgerow3277 If you had a construction company and owned more then 1 Truck you would care about mpg
@marshallgerow3277
Ай бұрын
@@atg1338 yeah I probably would, but I don’t.
@Brian_195
Ай бұрын
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.
@thegonz7833
Ай бұрын
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.
@davidporter7051
Ай бұрын
it's emissions. get used to it
@gtrance3567
Ай бұрын
Less emissions and no lifters to fail.
@benjaminwayneb
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
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.
@benjaminwayneb
Ай бұрын
@@Cloud30000 The varriable lift sliding shafts do screw up, the 2.7 is already having this problem.
@LSC2001
11 күн бұрын
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.
@Eightball2516
Ай бұрын
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
@joseeduardo4327
Ай бұрын
If they want to exist in todays trucks, they do
@atg1338
Ай бұрын
Had over 20 5.3 motors and have never had a problem... transmission problems yes but not motor issues.
@Null_Null_Null
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
Do some models not have a dfm?
@Null_Null_Null
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@occckid123
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
@@occckid123 I think the problem is brand loyalists that keep buying gm.
@Null_Null_Null
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@timothykeith1367
Ай бұрын
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
@davep4610
Ай бұрын
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.
@danielleclare2938
Ай бұрын
He is lying...
@chuckgladfelter
Ай бұрын
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.
@prigs750
Ай бұрын
Really enjoy your videos on these engines. Would love to see one comparing the Ford 2.7 ve the GM 2.7
@NeveTech
Ай бұрын
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?
@21psd
Ай бұрын
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. 😂
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
lol Love it!
@mitchrothermel8157
Ай бұрын
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?
@rickg2589
Күн бұрын
@@mitchrothermel8157 BS you are not even close to a real world situation…go sit down
@mitchrothermel8157
Күн бұрын
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!
@neiljuedes1661
Ай бұрын
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.
@atg1338
Ай бұрын
Had over 20 of them with no problems
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
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.
@atg1338
Ай бұрын
@@TheGettyAdventures such internet bull💩
@atowns3364
Ай бұрын
I'll stick with my 5.6 without the garbage.. fuel economy is not very high on my list of things to consider TBH.
@davidlefranc6240
Ай бұрын
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 .
@slmjake
Ай бұрын
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.
@williampetsch1244
Ай бұрын
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.
@khalidmuhammad1991
Ай бұрын
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
@heroofharo
Ай бұрын
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.
@FanaticalKilla
Ай бұрын
Love the "8 sets of collapsible lifters."😂
@teddonley9594
Ай бұрын
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
@Olds_Pwr
Ай бұрын
Since this video is about precise measurements, I would suggest using cubic inches over liters.
@mozeby1975
Ай бұрын
I barely get over 20 mpg in my ‘23 Tacoma. Sometimes it’s about how hard the engine is working.
@crt5866
Ай бұрын
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.
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
That is correct; the turbo engines are more about emissions regulations than mpg numbers due to CAFE.
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
Yes you are not wrong. and the GPFs are coming, they are already in Europe. going to be a nightmare most likely.
@crt5866
Ай бұрын
@@TheGettyAdventures yah, definitely not looking forward to it
@JimBronson
Ай бұрын
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.
@moonlit61
Ай бұрын
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
@paulfeasal6024
Ай бұрын
I thought the same thing with the Ford being the most efficient engine out their for fuel.
@MogulFarmer
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
Moving a massive brick down the road on only one 650cc motor is terrible and foolish not efficient.
@MogulFarmer
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@leanlifter1
Ай бұрын
@@MogulFarmer v8 is the most balanced and efficient designs
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
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.
@roberthenry9319
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@davidschroeder6799
Ай бұрын
Thanks for the video. Was the truck a 4x4 or 2wd? Thanks and God bless.
@tuffr2
21 күн бұрын
If I was driving a powerful turbo engine I would never get EPA rating as I would have a heavy foot. Zoom zoom.
@NukebyCrazy
Ай бұрын
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
@gregrowe1168
Ай бұрын
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.
@larryw5429
Ай бұрын
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!
@rickg2589
Күн бұрын
65 hilarious and I call BS on your mileage
@shanebrewer530
Ай бұрын
Great results. Now we need the 6.2 to see if it beats the 5.3.
@susanhenderson2322
Ай бұрын
My 6.2 Denali beats my buddies 5.3 on a run every time,
@slocavky
Ай бұрын
Get a 3.0 duramax for this one.. It'll easily win.
@atg1338
Ай бұрын
But the duramax costs more to fill up and oil changes cost more
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
It depends on the hit it takes in slow stop and go city traffic; it might negate the gains it gets on the highway.
@matthewsteinle5268
19 күн бұрын
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
@paulfeasal6024
Ай бұрын
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.
@bendino9016
Ай бұрын
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.
@paulfeasal6024
Ай бұрын
@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.
@reyperez3424
Ай бұрын
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.
@timothykeith1367
Ай бұрын
That's my policy, then the mpg doesn't matter.
@budlite8207
Ай бұрын
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.
@edwardpate6128
Ай бұрын
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.
@avidwaterfowler7522
Ай бұрын
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…
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
interesting your trailboss is rated 21. with the 2 inch lift you would think it would suffer EPA ratings
@kurtfirestone2761
Ай бұрын
Would love to see these tests done on a midsize pickup trucks
@agerardomp
Ай бұрын
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.
@93sundance
Ай бұрын
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.
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
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,
@chadmiller6487
Ай бұрын
Just drove 1200 miles up and down the east cost with my 24' 5.3. Got 21mpg average. 24mpg best and 18mpg worst.
@dewdew34
Ай бұрын
Based on this, reliability and price i'd have to check out the 3.5 ecoboost or the Coyote.
@trailrunnah8886
27 күн бұрын
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.
@rickg2589
Күн бұрын
BS impossible try again
@freedomisntfree_44
Ай бұрын
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.
@michaeldagostino69
Ай бұрын
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
@joshuaburton9474
Ай бұрын
Will you be getting your hands on a powerboost anytime soon?
@petemiller1517
Ай бұрын
I have a 2011 sierra with a 5.3. 130k miles no engine problems yet. Only get about 15 mpg though.😅
@otterchaos666
Ай бұрын
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.
@hexhead5732
Ай бұрын
I believe the results V8s do get almost the same gas mileage as a turbo v6 I've had both vehicles ford and ram
@daveharris39
Ай бұрын
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.
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
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.
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
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.
@roberthenry9319
Ай бұрын
Oh.
@johnandersonjjr
Ай бұрын
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.
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
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.
@TDub_ADV
Ай бұрын
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.
@johnandersonjjr
Ай бұрын
@@Cloud30000 yeah after the warranty is up but ( then)that’s in the danger (time/mileage)zone
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@alexandretempleux6912
Ай бұрын
well that is very nice! thx for your testing!
@gmtcolt45
Ай бұрын
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
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
the extended oil changes are wild on all engines. but very interesting you haven't seen any lifter failures.
@guyforlogos
Ай бұрын
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.
@jamesbosworth4191
Ай бұрын
Also, it didn't have a real gas cap. What's up with that?
@marksman4004
Ай бұрын
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.
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
You must have been limiting yourself to 65mph to get those numbers.
@marksman4004
Ай бұрын
@Cloud30000 65 & 70. Couldn't believe it myself. Had to take a picture for proof.
@danielleclare2938
Ай бұрын
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.
@oldbiker9739
Ай бұрын
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.
@leifelander6230
Ай бұрын
As long as it works right , repairs are a nightmare .
@kodisells7897
Ай бұрын
Now do the 5th and fourth gen rams. V6 and v8
@JK-qe6qq
Ай бұрын
What about the straight 6?
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
4th gen? Are we testing 10 year old models now? If so, I have a large list I’d like to add.
@kodisells7897
Ай бұрын
@@Cloud30000 I meant the ram classic models that can be bought new.
@andrewschmier6749
Ай бұрын
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.
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
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.
@roberthenry9319
Ай бұрын
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.
@bendino9016
Ай бұрын
I would like to know the rear gear ratio on all these trucks.
@andreizuerch
Ай бұрын
It would be nice to see it tested again with the DFM deleted.
@Cloud30000
Ай бұрын
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.
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
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.
@roberthenry9319
Ай бұрын
@@Cloud30000 So now we have to worry about the DFM police?
@chriscollins5762
Ай бұрын
Please do a video on GM 6.0 vortec engines!?!!!
@gearheadtechnology
Ай бұрын
It's accurate, I can pull 28 in my 2019 still and that's with a slight tune and AFM turned off. lol
@TheGettyAdventures
Ай бұрын
Wild to see how efficient these engines are.
@24cupsandcounting
Ай бұрын
What was the rear- end ratio in this particular truck?
@Southpaw226
Ай бұрын
Lets see the 3.0 duramax
@thejosh0100
Ай бұрын
time to test ram i guess, tho the cost of the newer trucks almost negates the fuel savings imo
@JohnRayAllDay
Ай бұрын
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.
Пікірлер: 369