Jump to content

6.2L (L9H) Owners - Get all your questions answered here

RyanbabZ71
 Share

Recommended Posts

ChevyTech77 Senior Enthusiast

ChevyTech77

Posted
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
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

DanMan_S
DanMan_S

This is a video showing how the 6.2L sounds with headers and a corsa catback. The crew cab is my 6.2L, the 2005 extended cab is a 5.3L with a magnaflow muffler welded in.    

gonzoid
gonzoid

finished product  

2010LTZ4x4
2010LTZ4x4

Where did you get the 6.2L badge in you avatar?  Heres the info for the 6.2L badge Top Flight Reproductions is proud to announce the addition of the 6.2L emblem to our emblem product line. This embl

Posted Images

Badbird2000 Enthusiast

Badbird2000

Posted
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!

ChevyTech77 Senior Enthusiast

ChevyTech77

Posted
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:

becker87 Senior Enthusiast

becker87

Posted
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!

Garrett Street Enthusiast

Garrett Street

Posted
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.

DonnyStevens Enthusiast

DonnyStevens

Posted
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?

ChevyTech77 Senior Enthusiast

ChevyTech77

Posted
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.

michigan2500hd Senior Enthusiast

michigan2500hd

Posted
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
Badbird2000 Enthusiast

Badbird2000

Posted
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!

Wolfmanjohn Enthusiast

Wolfmanjohn

Posted
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).

AgDoctor Senior Enthusiast

AgDoctor

Posted
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.

AgDoctor Senior Enthusiast

AgDoctor

Posted
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.

ChevyTech77 Senior Enthusiast

ChevyTech77

Posted
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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      I hope to high heaven this is wrong. My Chevy farm trucks frame is lasting way longer than a newer Nissan Titan XD I got for a steal, and it only pulls trailers. A decade younger and it's frame is already way rustier than the waxed Chevy I drive across longs and ditches. Also, hasn't Ford been having tones of troubles with rusted frames? 
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • NDKoze
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By NDKoze · Posted

      If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...