User Name Password    
CleanMPG, Learn to raise fuel economy and lower emissions in whatever you drive.  
MENU
• What is hypermiling? •
CleanMPG to AAA:
• Hypermiling Rebuttal •
 
Home
CleanMPG Staff
Articles
Fuel Economy Forums
      • Register
Go Hypermiling!

   Car Reviews:

2013 Elantra GT

2013 Elantra Coupe

2013 Lexus ES 300h

2013 Mazda CX-5


2013 Lexus GS 450h

2012 Prius c

2013 Malibu Eco

2012 Hyundai Accent
   Bike and Gear Reviews:

HTC Thunderbolt

2010 R 1200 GS (A)

Kawasaki KLX250SF

Zero S


Aerostich Darien

Shoei Hornet DS

Honda CRF230L

Yamaha XT250


More Reviews
Gallery
Mileage Logs
 
CleanMPG Store
 
Calendar
Glossary
Garage
Files
 
Research
Related Sites
 
Archives
Arcade
 
Monthly Fuel Efficient •
Vehicle Sales Figures


ScanGauge with X-Gauge: $159.95

Pre-programming, a CleanMPG laser cut decal, and shipping included!



Even better value for members only is available in the latest SG-II w/ X-Gauge Group Buy purchase thread.



While we strive to provide only the highest quality information through our members' offerings, if you find the information provided valuable, please consider a donation so that we can offer an even better experience for the membership and guests well into the future.

Thank you

-Wayne Gerdes
Owner/Admin
CleanMPG



Home Fuel Economy Forums Gallery Mileage Logs

Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   CleanMPG Forums » Information » In the News


In the News News items that may be of interest. These show up on the front page.
Only Moderators may start threads, but anyone can respond to them.

Welcome to the CleanMPG forums.

Some posts may describe situations which may in some cases be unsafe or illegal in some jurisdictions. Please use common sense and consult your local laws to make sure you do not hurt yourself or others or break any laws.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view discussions, articles and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support.

GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much to be desired…

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Submit to Clesto Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl
Old 08-15-2012, 08:42 AM
xcel's Avatar
xcel xcel is offline
PZEV, there's nothing like it :)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Vehicles: Accord, Ranger, and anything else ;)
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 42,682
GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much to be desired…

In a desperate attempt to showcase the aging Silverado lineup over its rivals, GM touts cylinder deactivation with pushrods over multivalve per cylinder and downsizing with direct injection and turbocharging?

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2013_Chevrolet_Silverado.jpg
Wayne Gerdes - CleanMPG - Aug 15, 2012

2013 Chevrolet Silverado – Pricing TBA and an at best 15/21 mpgUS city/highway using an aged design based on an original from almost 6 decades ago

GM’s fuel efficiency of its bread and butter 5.3L V8 engine in the latest 2013 Silverado continues to be enhanced with cylinder deactivation in low load operation.

Managers (not Engineers) developing the current Silverado sought the least expensive solution for improving the fuel economy while preserving its durability and lackluster performance.

Jordan Lee, Global Chief Engineer for GM small block engines must have cringed when he was quoted by the PR group with the following:
Quote:
“Rather than adding turbochargers or multi-valve cylinder heads to increase the power of smaller engines, we chose to keep the proven capability of our larger V8 truck engines, and save fuel by switching off half of the cylinders when they aren’t needed.”
A combination of simple hydraulic valves (read cheap) and software switch off the cylinders when the driver doesn’t need full power. When more power is needed, the system, called Active Fuel Management or AFM reengages the additional cylinders.

With the above, should Cruze ECO and Sonic owners with their modern designed 1.4L turbo’s including 4-valve per cylinder heads be concerned?

Additional diatribe that must be making Ford’s EcoBoost designers shake their heads included GM saying its 5.3L provides “V8 power and capability while offering up the best EPA fuel economy estimates of any V8 pickup.”
Quote:
“Our 5.3-liter V-8 delivers EPA fuel economy estimates comparable to some competitors’ V6 engines.”
What they failed to provide was the performance AND fuel economy are both lacking by comparison to the latest modern V6 engine designs from Ford as shown in the following snap shot and spec description.


Ford’s 365 HP/420 lb-ft of torque 3.5L EcoBoost (16/22) vs. GM’s aging 315 HP/335 lb-ft. of torque 5.3L V8 (15/21 mpg) in a 620 ft. drag race.

The Silverado with the 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 using 4-speed ATs and the 5.3L V8 using a 6-speed AT was a group of old dogs competing with Ford’s pack of young wolves with their modern engine designs and 6-speed ATs. Not only was the older 5.3L V8 performance aspect proven subpar vs. the much more modern EcoBoost and Hemi onslaught hundreds of times, its EPA rated fuel economy is also significantly behind the times.

GM is stretching their entire PU truck engine lineup redesign at the expense of future owners Even Ford’s naturally aspirated 302 HP/278 lb. ft. of torque 3.7L V6 mated to the modern 6-speed AT they provide provided sprint times just a fraction of a second off the Chevrolet 5.3L V8 for a lower cost, less HW thanks to its 4-valve per cylinder modern engine design vs. AFM all the while providing a respectable for a PU truck, EPA of 17/23 mpgUS city/highway compared to the 15/21 5.3L.

Later on in the PR, Lee added:
Quote:
“As GM develops future vehicles, we will continue to draw on our company’s unsurpassed global powertrain portfolio, which includes direct injection, clean diesels, vehicle electrification, turbocharging, supercharging, and other technologies. But as with our current V-8 engines with Active Fuel Management, the starting point is always what’s the right solution for the customer and the way they use the vehicle.”
Can the following emoticon describe this release any better?

GM, you can do much much better than this! Outdated 2-valve per cylinder pushrod engines were good 57 years ago when they were first designed but today with $4.00/gallon gasoline? Maybe that is why Ford sold 49,314 F-Series by comparison to the Silverado’s 28,972 and Sierra’s 11,105 vehicles purchased last month? This is the kind of thinking and product sinks corporations and you must do better!

There was one highlight in this misguided release. According to Vincentric, the Silverado has the lowest total cost of ownership of any full-size pickup. I wonder what KBB says about that?
__________________

Last edited by xcel : 08-17-2012 at 04:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   Submit to Clesto Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl
Old 08-15-2012, 08:54 AM
xcel's Avatar
xcel xcel is offline
PZEV, there's nothing like it :)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Vehicles: Accord, Ranger, and anything else ;)
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 42,682
Re: GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much To Be Desired…

Hi All:

All the while RAM is set to unleash their new 3.6L Pentastar V-6 engine (Ward’s 10 Best Engines Award two years in a row) with variable-valve timing (VVT) with 305 HP and 269 lb.-ft. of torque as standard equipment.

In addition, this new RAM PU truck engine will provide a “best of the best-in-class fuel economy” of possibly 18/24 mpgUS (my guesstimate?) for V6 equipped PU trucks.

Wayne
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3   Submit to Clesto Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl
Old 08-15-2012, 09:10 AM
rhwinger's Avatar
rhwinger rhwinger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Vehicles: 2006 HCH II w/NAVI; 2012 Ford C Mac SE
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 712
Re: GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much To Be Desired…

Hi Wayne:

A coworker looked at the F-150 Ecoboost after our adventure drive. He said the Ecoboost was more expensive and he couldn't get incentives to help lower the cost difference. I don't know how hard he tried with the dealer. He ended up getting the Chevy PU FSP. I don't know all the particulars, but he drives close to 25 miles each way if he doesn't ride his motorcycle.

I don't know how GM computes 'cost of ownership'. Does it include fuel for, say, 17K miles a year or something?

Bob
__________________

"Bomber" Bob
Cessna and HCH-II Pilot
Best tank 774 miles/10.4 gal
Reply With Quote
  #4   Submit to Clesto Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl
Old 08-15-2012, 09:26 AM
bullwinkle428 bullwinkle428 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Vehicles: 2002 Honda Accord EX Sedan (5-speed manual)
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 91
Re: GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much To Be Desired…

Is this just a recycling of the old technology that GM used with the Cadillac 8-6-4 engine (if I recall correctly) some 20-25 years ago? I know that was a complete flop, in terms of both performance and sales, and they were fortunate that gas became relatively cheap for a number of years after that, which allowed them to get by with ancient designs.
Reply With Quote
  #5   Submit to Clesto Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl
Old 08-15-2012, 09:35 AM
TheStepChild TheStepChild is offline
Custom User Title
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Vehicles: 07 Silverado, 12 Express Cargo
Location: Albion, MI
Posts: 1,210
Re: GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much To Be Desired…

Was wondering the same about the caddi. My grandfather had one of those turds.
__________________
James -
Reply With Quote
  #6   Submit to Clesto Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl
Old 08-15-2012, 09:40 AM
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
PaleMelanesian PaleMelanesian is offline
Beat The System
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Vehicles: 2009 Fit, 2004 Odyssey, 96 Civic retired
Location: Longview, TX
Posts: 12,785
Re: GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much To Be Desired…

I hear the current GM deactivation scheme works pretty well, no like the old 8-6-4. The trouble is it's still churning all 8 pistons and carrying their weight and the bigger engine block. Why not build it smaller and boost when needed, instead of building bigger and then idling part when not needed? I'll pose the same question to Honda with their 6-4-3 VCM V6 engines... Why start with the big engine?
__________________
Andrew


----
100 mpg commute / 90.2 mpg tank = 1191 miles
Reply With Quote
  #7   Submit to Clesto Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl
Old 08-15-2012, 12:06 PM
herm herm is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,464
Re: GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much to be desired…

What mpg do the Ford and GM owners get in everyday commuting?.. while towing 3000, 5000 and 10000lbs?.. I still dont trust turbos.

We know what the EPA gets.
Reply With Quote
  #8   Submit to Clesto Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl
Old 08-15-2012, 12:06 PM
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
PaleMelanesian PaleMelanesian is offline
Beat The System
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Vehicles: 2009 Fit, 2004 Odyssey, 96 Civic retired
Location: Longview, TX
Posts: 12,785
Re: GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much to be desired…

Try pickuptrucks.com for towing tests. Pretty sure they did one with F150 V8 vs ecoboost.
__________________
Andrew


----
100 mpg commute / 90.2 mpg tank = 1191 miles
Reply With Quote
  #9   Submit to Clesto Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl
Old 08-15-2012, 12:26 PM
rhwinger's Avatar
rhwinger rhwinger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Vehicles: 2006 HCH II w/NAVI; 2012 Ford C Mac SE
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 712
Re: GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much to be desired…

I know one group that got 32 mpg on a cross country trip, fully loaded. ;-)

Oh yeah, and 22 mpg while towing a Fiesta from Atlanta to Williamsburg.
__________________

"Bomber" Bob
Cessna and HCH-II Pilot
Best tank 774 miles/10.4 gal
Reply With Quote
  #10   Submit to Clesto Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl
Old 08-15-2012, 12:36 PM
xcel's Avatar
xcel xcel is offline
PZEV, there's nothing like it :)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Vehicles: Accord, Ranger, and anything else ;)
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 42,682
Re: GM’s PU Truck Cylinder Deactivation Leaves Much to be desired…

Hi Herm:

When it comes to towing, there is so much energy in a gallon of gasoline and diesel and it is all used when the throttle plate is opened up. It is when the vehicle is not towing which is 98% or more % of the time when all of these technologies can provide better FE under low or lower LOD operation.

Unfortunately GM is boasting about 30 and 60 year old technology while the real work was done by its competitors with the results continuing to show up in the real world and the EPA. The numerous 5.3’s I drove dated felt dated by comparison to both the 3.5L EcoBoost and the 5.7L HEMI in the RAM.

What GM needs to do is bring in its DI and boosted new V6 in a new truck including a much needed interior update. Driving newer GM PUs remind me of driving decade old GM PU trucks. They just have not kept pace with what the rest of the industry has gone to. Toyota’s Tundra and RAM’s 1500 have the best interiors by far. Ford has its amazing EcoBoost and its Power Stroke. Even its more fuel efficient 3.7L kicks @$$ on the fuel economy side of the equation. All GM currently has it their Duramax with the 6-speed Allison and that is absolutely it when it comes to consumer trucks from my perspective.

Bob, that was almost 26 mpg when towing the Fiesta

Wayne
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VWs 1.4L I4 with Cylinder Deactivation xcel In the News 3 08-06-2012 09:19 PM
Ford’s Focus Diesel Honored Yet Again in Europe… Nowhere To Be Found Here However :( xcel In the News 23 05-16-2012 04:42 PM
CR’s 2011 Annual Reliability Report is out and… xcel In the News 10 10-26-2011 08:43 AM
Cylinder Deactivation Improves FE Chuck In the News 32 10-19-2007 10:12 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2006 - 2013, Clean MPG LLC. All Rights Reserved.