2014 Silverado / Sierra thread

**konigandy6** · 12-31-2012, 07:29 AM

My 2002 would get consistent 18mpg's with about 70% highway driving. CAI and exhaust.

My 2004 would get 16-17 with more city driving with no mods at all.

Both trucks were 5.3's.

My other 04 would get 13.... but it was an AWD SS :P

My truck now... I don't even want to talk about it. lol

**REVNORR82** · 12-31-2012, 07:53 AM

I get about 16 on average and the best i seen was 18 hwy mine is a 07 classic with cia and exhaust

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

**konigandy6** · 12-31-2012, 08:23 AM

**0rion** · 12-31-2012, 09:59 AM

not your daddy's pick up truck......

**5.0THIS** · 01-01-2013, 12:07 AM

Gm needs the 6.2. It fills that need as ford has their 6.2 and dodge has the hemi. The people buying those trucks aren't too worried about mileage. And also, the ecoboost trucks aren't getting awesome fuel mileage on average. Most people get mid to high teens. And some people even worse, and ford is telling people it's normal lol.

**REVNORR82** · 01-02-2013, 04:43 AM

I like that you can get this truck in a crew cab and a 6 ft bed never understood why they didnt do that in the half tons before

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

**Firebirdjones** · 01-04-2013, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by REVNORR82

Yea i know 346 but i still dont see a 13 to 15 mpg difference from a truck to a car i believe that gm could get in the 25 mpg range with a half ton 4wd and still have plenty of power.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Actually it's not that bad. What is hurting the mileage in the trucks are the very lame tunes they run.

I get great mileage out of my 6.0, in a 4x4 blazer running through the old cast iron pig of a transfer case (205), a 4L60E and 3.73 gears running 33" tires. After a solid tune I get 17 mpg city and 22 mpg highway.

My wifes 2000 SS camaro with a 6 speed gets 21 mpg city and 30 mpg highway after a tune.

Not that much difference considering a 3600lbs. aerodynamic car with a .50 overdrive vs a 4,960 lbs 4x4 shaped like a brick using a .70 overdrive.

When you think about it, the 6.0 really isn't all that much bigger than the 5.7 LS1. 346 vs 364 just isn't enough to really affect mileage to a measurable degree. If you put either engine in the exact same car, I'm betting I can get very similar mileage from either one.

**Firebirdjones** · 01-04-2013, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by konigandy6

The new designed 6.2 is now utilizing direct injection. Which actually should squeeze out a few more ponies and give it better economy. We'll have to see though.

I'm a little leary of the direct injection. Works fine in the diesels but they use a different fuel.

In the gas powered stuff there have been complaints already from carbon buildup affecting injector performance from other brands that have tried this. So injector cleaning becomes even more critical, and maintanance is going to be more expensive as well since they aren't easily accessed anymore. Sounds like a pain in the ass for very little gain.
Me personally, I plan to avoid that stuff like the plague.

**0rion** · 01-04-2013, 10:42 AM

It's the same as any newer auto tech stuff...you gotta give them a few years to get all the bugs worked out. I bet you'll see a couple different injector part numbers come and go over the next 2-3 years until they get it figured out. I agree about the maintenance.....makes it a bigger pain in the ass to change out but I won't have to worry about it. Don't plan on ever owning another gas burner.

**konigandy6** · 01-04-2013, 01:47 PM

Because vacuums are electric!

DI has been out in quite a few GM vehicles for the past few years. Not very many issues as far as injectors yet. The Equinox had a recall on them for a noise, that's about it.

**REVNORR82** · 01-04-2013, 02:27 PM

Mercedes has been making di since the fifties not to mention Mitsubishi and many other companies and isnt the 3.6 in the camaro di.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

**5.0THIS** · 01-04-2013, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Firebirdjones

Actually it's not that bad. What is hurting the mileage in the trucks are the very lame tunes they run.

I get great mileage out of my 6.0, in a 4x4 blazer running through the old cast iron pig of a transfer case (205), a 4L60E and 3.73 gears running 33" tires. After a solid tune I get 17 mpg city and 22 mpg highway.

My wifes 2000 SS camaro with a 6 speed gets 21 mpg city and 30 mpg highway after a tune.

Not that much difference considering a 3600lbs. aerodynamic car with a .50 overdrive vs a 4,960 lbs 4x4 shaped like a brick using a .70 overdrive.

When you think about it, the 6.0 really isn't all that much bigger than the 5.7 LS1. 346 vs 364 just isn't enough to really affect mileage to a measurable degree. If you put either engine in the exact same car, I'm betting I can get very similar mileage from either one.

Well then the 6.0s must have even worse tunes than your average 5.3, because most people notice a significant difference in fuel economy in stock trucks between the two engines. Your mileage is still hard to believe (I do believe you though

). My 04 sierra rcsb doesnt do that good, and the only thing I have going against me are the 20 inch wheels/tires. It's the same or lighter than your truck, more aerodynamic, smaller tires, and only a 5.3. It does seem to run pig rich though, as evidenced by the really dirty tailpipe. I've been wanting to do a tune for awhile now, just hoping blackbear will come to town for an in-person tune.

Originally Posted by Firebirdjones

I'm a little leary of the direct injection. Works fine in the diesels but they use a different fuel.

In the gas powered stuff there have been complaints already from carbon buildup affecting injector performance from other brands that have tried this. So injector cleaning becomes even more critical, and maintanance is going to be more expensive as well since they aren't easily accessed anymore. Sounds like a pain in the ass for very little gain.
Me personally, I plan to avoid that stuff like the plague.

It's worked fine in gas vehicles for years, as others have pointed out. BMW has had great success with it, as well as GM and many other companies. It really isnt that new.

**Firebirdjones** · 01-05-2013, 11:10 AM

Haven't looked at a 5.3 tune so can't comment on that, but I know the 6.0's were meant to be work horses from the get go, since that's all they had for the bigger 3/4 ton trucks after they dropped the BBC production around 2000, unless you wanted to pony up for a diesel. So I tend to believe GM kept those tunes tame for warranty reasons.

Some of the timing tables I saw in mine were at or near 0 degrees (just pathetic), the knock tables were aggressive, no DFCO to speak of, fueling was pig rich, and PE was completely different from the LS1 tunes I've messed with.

Compared to the LS1 tunes I've done on our cars, I really had alot more things to change and tweak on the truck tune.

Yeah I realize DI has been around on other production cars, and I've heard some complaints of the carbon fouling that I mentioned. They haven't went without their problems. Like I said, I'm betting maintanance is going to be more critical to maintain good performance, and more costly as a result. Just not something I'd prefer considering what we already have works good enough.
I mean, you have to ask yourself,,,when is it good enough? Why complicate things further?

But keep in mind this is coming from a guy that still lives in the carb and points age (and I don't mind it)

**5.0THIS** · 01-05-2013, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Firebirdjones

Yeah I realize DI has been around on other production cars, and I've heard some complaints of the carbon fouling that I mentioned. They haven't went without their problems. Like I said, I'm betting maintanance is going to be more critical to maintain good performance, and more costly as a result. Just not something I'd prefer considering what we already have works good enough.
I mean, you have to ask yourself,,,when is it good enough? Why complicate things further?

I'm honestly not sure what you're basing any of this off of. I'm betting you'll be wrong on all accounts, no offense. I see no increase of maintenance on BMW's DI cars, or GM's for that matter. Why complicate things further? Because the DI allows for better combustion, more efficiency, more compression, etc etc. It's a great technology, and manufacturers are doing all they can to eek out every bit of fuel economy and performance from internal combustion engines these days.

**Firebirdjones** · 01-06-2013, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by 5.0THIS

I'm honestly not sure what you're basing any of this off of. I'm betting you'll be wrong on all accounts, no offense. I see no increase of maintenance on BMW's DI cars, or GM's for that matter. Why complicate things further? Because the DI allows for better combustion, more efficiency, more compression, etc etc. It's a great technology, and manufacturers are doing all they can to eek out every bit of fuel economy and performance from internal combustion engines these days.

You sound just like someone that needs the latest and greatest LED/high definition big screen TV, as if the picture quality was never good enough to satisfy. How good does it have to be just to watch a TV show?

If you can't see the higher cost of maintanance due to a more "difficult to work on" design, then I don't know what to tell ya

Give it a few years and a couple hundred thousand miles. Then again, those that can afford a BMW probably don't care anyway....I'd bet most are leased or traded in before the warranty expires. Doubt this stuff will be desirable 40 years from now.

**5.0THIS** · 01-06-2013, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Firebirdjones

You sound just like someone that needs the latest and greatest LED/high definition big screen TV, as if the picture quality was never good enough to satisfy. How good does it have to be just to watch a TV show?

If you can't see the higher cost of maintanance due to a more "difficult to work on" design, then I don't know what to tell ya

Give it a few years and a couple hundred thousand miles. Then again, those that can afford a BMW probably don't care anyway....I'd bet most are leased or traded in before the warranty expires. Doubt this stuff will be desirable 40 years from now.

I'm quite happy with the several year old vizio flatscreen tv I have now, thanks. You keep saying these things about increased maintenance, but can you show me anything to substantiate that claim? And how is this system any more difficult to work on, and why would it matter if the systems are proving to be reliable anyway? And it's real easy for you to say it wont be around in 40 years, as we probably wont even be using internal combustion engines in 40 years anyway. If you cant see the benefits of technology like direct injection, I cant help you. They're pretty obvious, and most gearheads can look at them and see the obvious benefits, wether they like the technology or not.

And since we're generalizing, you seem just like someone who is stuck in the past and refuses to let go of a bygone era of shitty technology.

**0rion** · 01-07-2013, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by 5.0THIS

I'm quite happy with the several year old vizio flatscreen tv I have now, thanks. You keep saying these things about increased maintenance, but can you show me anything to substantiate that claim? And how is this system any more difficult to work on, and why would it matter if the systems are proving to be reliable anyway? And it's real easy for you to say it wont be around in 40 years, as we probably wont even be using internal combustion engines in 40 years anyway. If you cant see the benefits of technology like direct injection, I cant help you. They're pretty obvious, and most gearheads can look at them and see the obvious benefits, wether they like the technology or not.

And since we're generalizing, you seem just like someone who is stuck in the past and refuses to let go of a bygone era of shitty technology.

I don't know about that. In the early/mid 80's when I was in school I was told we'd all have jet packs by now......I'm still waiting on my damn jet pack.

**Firebirdjones** · 01-07-2013, 01:17 PM

Yes, I've said it before, technoligy peaked for me about 1975

I prefer the KISS principle and really have no reason to change. My carbs and points still run fine and get me from A to B

What ever floats your boat

**5.0THIS** · 01-07-2013, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by 0rion

I don't know about that. In the early/mid 80's when I was in school I was told we'd all have jet packs by now......I'm still waiting on my damn jet pack.

Really?

I have two.

**shep28** · 07-19-2014, 09:31 AM

I have a 14 silverado. Average city is 18 and highest highway is 23. I traded a LQ9 2005 vortec max crew with 4.10s. I miss the rumble, but have come to enjoy the $ I am saving on fuel. If I could go back, I should have got a rado with a 3.4/3.7 rear. These also come with an oil cooler. I have the 3.0_ rear and towed an open car trailer and the z28 recently. Very close to max tow rating. The trans cooler I installed really helped.