Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Well, 400-ish mile round trip this past weekend, towing my sled trailer with two sleds in it (2500 lbs approx.) and the 6.2 pulled down 12.5 mpg with an average speed around 70 mph. That's with headwinds, my trailer being a brick wall (because of the way it's constructed) and through the hills of Northern Michigan.

 

In case you're all curious, my buddies '12 EB F150 was pulling a slightly heavier trailer, with better aerodynamics, averaging 70 mph and he got....................9 mpg. :rollin:

  • Like 1
Posted

I'm pretty sure that the size of pipe was used for less backpressure but making a 90 degree-ish bend, right after the resonator, wasn't going to happen in that amount of space with that size of pipe, is my guess. And an educated one, at that.

 

My boss has an Escalade that he parks in the one car garage her at the office. Everytime he starts it up, it echo's like crazy in the tiny garage. Sounds incredible! Even batter than my truck and it has a Borla exhaust!

Posted

I'm pretty sure that the size of pipe was used for less backpressure but making a 90 degree-ish bend, right after the resonator, wasn't going to happen in that amount of space with that size of pipe, is my guess. And an educated one, at that.

 

My boss has an Escalade that he parks in the one car garage her at the office. Everytime he starts it up, it echo's like crazy in the tiny garage. Sounds incredible! Even batter than my truck and it has a Borla exhaust!

 

 

My 6.2/L9H equipped Silverado sounds very similar and I love it. :cheers:

Posted

the only thing I've wanted to do is get rid of the rear resonator. Just for a little more sound.

 

 

It makes it sound even better!

Posted

Well, 400-ish mile round trip this past weekend, towing my sled trailer with two sleds in it (2500 lbs approx.) and the 6.2 pulled down 12.5 mpg with an average speed around 70 mph. That's with headwinds, my trailer being a brick wall (because of the way it's constructed) and through the hills of Northern Michigan.

 

In case you're all curious, my buddies '12 EB F150 was pulling a slightly heavier trailer, with better aerodynamics, averaging 70 mph and he got....................9 mpg. :rollin:

 

 

Did you get a chance to ride around with him while he was pulling? I'm curious as to how that little guy pulls. There's not been any real reviews yet except from Ford fella's whom think the EB is God's gift to humanity.

Posted

So how many of you have removed the resonator? I am going to install a magna flow exhaust only and was wandering if removing the resonator would be a good idea or would it be too loud / would the drone while driving be too loud?

Posted

Well, 400-ish mile round trip this past weekend, towing my sled trailer with two sleds in it (2500 lbs approx.) and the 6.2 pulled down 12.5 mpg with an average speed around 70 mph. That's with headwinds, my trailer being a brick wall (because of the way it's constructed) and through the hills of Northern Michigan.

 

In case you're all curious, my buddies '12 EB F150 was pulling a slightly heavier trailer, with better aerodynamics, averaging 70 mph and he got....................9 mpg. :rollin:

 

 

Did you get a chance to ride around with him while he was pulling? I'm curious as to how that little guy pulls. There's not been any real reviews yet except from Ford fella's whom think the EB is God's gift to humanity.

 

Unfortunantly no, I didn't. I did ride in it with no load and it feels very smooth and has a very similar pull as my 6.2 does by the seat of the pants feel. I offered to run him down the expressway loaded, on the way home, but he declined. Sissy. LOL.

Posted

Got on a ford forum to see what those guys are saying about our 6.2. Makes me like this place all the more. We at least ( most of us lol) discuss what the other truck makers are doing. Good or bad and try to give credit were credit is due. I checked out a f-150 site to see what they were saying about our 6.2 and I have to say they sound like a bunch of whiners lol..like " I'm sure like all GM engine the powers up high in the rpms and not down low were Ford knows its needed in a truck"..or " give it a 100,000 miles and it will be a oil burning piece of junk and out trucks will just be breaking in". Sure we are here because we like our Chevys and GMC's but we know there is stiff competition out there and can discuss as adults the good and the bad..just an observation..take it for what its worth :)

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Yup i am a member of a Ford truck forum..they are pretty closed minded for the most part. I own a 2002 with a 4.6 liter with 152000 miles. One day i will be back in a bowtie..this is my first blue oval..it has been a good truck but the plug design sucks!

Posted

So how many of you have removed the resonator? I am going to install a magna flow exhaust only and was wandering if removing the resonator would be a good idea or would it be too loud / would the drone while driving be too loud?

 

 

Yeah, I'd be interested in knowing how removing the resonator only and leaving the stock muffler on would affect everyday driveability, performance, and gas mileage (I only include mileage because it can be a driveability and performance indicator), and how it would affect VVT/PCM operation (to the point of needing a tune or not).

Posted

I have a set of 275's on mine with the 5.3 and I am glad to see 13 mpg without a trailer. If i hook up a trailer go ahead and look for 11-12. I avg 12 on a good day with a 700 ATV in the back. All these ridiculous mpg numbers must come from people driving 45 with a tail wind, stock tires, and easy throttle. GM fuel economy sucks. I have a 2011 Ford F150 work truck with the 5.0 and 3.73 with factory 20's and that beast will out tow, out run, and out mpg this 5.3 any day. It gets an easy 17-18 with the ATV in the back. It may dip considerable with some decent tires though. If Fords werent so damn ugly I would get one. I like my Chevy, but when I need a good laugh I troll for people boasting fuel economy. And, the DIC is wrong more than it is right, it apparently was built by an optimist.

Posted

Also, I need to mention this; my tandem axle 16 ft utility trailer loaded with my 800 Ranger and 700 grizzly, most of the time pulling it at 55-60 it gets 10 mpg.

 

Wife's Z71 4X4 Tahoe with stock Bridgestones will get 20 going to the beach and back. Had a 2007, 2010, and this 2011. All 4X4 Z's with crew cab and lowest gear ratio available and pretty much same mileage. The 6 speed didnt help mileage but power delivery is better.

Posted

I have a set of 275's on mine with the 5.3 and I am glad to see 13 mpg without a trailer. If i hook up a trailer go ahead and look for 11-12. I avg 12 on a good day with a 700 ATV in the back. All these ridiculous mpg numbers must come from people driving 45 with a tail wind, stock tires, and easy throttle. GM fuel economy sucks. I have a 2011 Ford F150 work truck with the 5.0 and 3.73 with factory 20's and that beast will out tow, out run, and out mpg this 5.3 any day. It gets an easy 17-18 with the ATV in the back. It may dip considerable with some decent tires though. If Fords werent so damn ugly I would get one. I like my Chevy, but when I need a good laugh I troll for people boasting fuel economy. And, the DIC is wrong more than it is right, it apparently was built by an optimist.

 

 

So, you changed to a larger tire and you're going to come into a thread like this and tell all of us that are running stock tires, etc. that we don't know simple math?

 

Game on, son. :bs:

 

Try getting your vehicle properly calibrated for the tires your running. I'll send you my gas slips after I go 500ish mile round trip, next week, pulling my snowmobiles around and get 12.5 mpg with my 6.2, all the live long day.

 

Oh and my dic, is within .01% of hand math. It favors the bad side, also, if you were curious.

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...