Jump to content

Anyone else notice this with MPG's

95z71performer

By 95z71performer
in The Off-Topic Bar

Recommended Posts

95z71performer Enthusiast

95z71performer

Posted
Posted

previous generations of cars and truck both get better gas mileage or just are of overall better quality my dad has a 2000 silverado shorty stepside with a 4.8l V8 and gets 25-30 mpg and my brother-in-law gets 18-22 with an 08 silverado with 5.3 that only has a magnaflow system on it if you ask me shouldn't it be the same, with technology being so "good", and they should match????????

95z71performer Enthusiast

95z71performer

Posted
  • Author
Posted

it's stock believe it or not and I wouldn't let them look at my dad's truck they will make the MPG's go down kinda like those cars from the 70's and 80's that could get 50-80 roughly and went in for a recall that then when the "repairs" were done dropped it down to ~20

kstruckcountry Senior Enthusiast

kstruckcountry

Posted
Posted

No domestic cars got 50 mpg in the 70's or 80's man. We all know someone who "got 60 mpg" in their 79 Camaro. And they're all full of it.

 

I get 18 in my 2006 with 4x4, big bumper and AT tires on the highway. Really good IMO.

tanked_darren Senior Enthusiast

tanked_darren

Posted
Posted
it's stock believe it or not and I wouldn't let them look at my dad's truck they will make the MPG's go down kinda like those cars from the 70's and 80's that could get 50-80 roughly and went in for a recall that then when the "repairs" were done dropped it down to ~20

 

Believe it or not I got roughly 87mpg on a '72 GMC shortbox before these "repairs" you speak of were performed.

 

Uphill towards a headwind in the winter even!

 

Sent from my Motorola DynaTAC using Tapatalk

 

 

95z71performer Enthusiast

95z71performer

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My grandpa had about 75 MPG with a 82 grand prix before a "recall" and got less than 20 after e showed before and after pictures to me of the engine last night

Blue2500CC Enthusiast

Blue2500CC

Posted
Posted

Believe it or not I got roughly 87mpg on a '72 GMC shortbox before these "repairs" you speak of were performed.

 

Uphill towards a headwind in the winter even!

 

Sent from my Motorola DynaTAC using Tapatalk

Was that before or after the BlackBear tune?

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

The story of cars getting exceptional mileage and then being "recalled" is a myth. Just a bunch of crap people pass on as legit. And the reason some of the tiny cars in the 80s or early 90s did do good on gas was because they weighed nothing. No safety equipment, basic radio, manual everything and you died if you hit a fox because they didn't have to meet crash standards like they do now.

kstruckcountry Senior Enthusiast

kstruckcountry

Posted
Posted

I don't know if you've been inside engines much, but there's no magic. If the car companies had a magic wand that defeated physics, they would be using the hell out of it right about meow.

 

As far as the 2000 vs the 2008, the 2008 weighs a lot more and has a bunch more safety features. Even then, I doubt you're getting 30 mpg in the 2000. Maybe on flat ground with the wind behind you and no load. And the newer trucks aren't *that* much better simply because a heavy box shaped pickup can only do so well.

95z71performer Enthusiast

95z71performer

Posted
  • Author
Posted

good point with the weight but still my dad gets 25-30 mpg on the 4.8 with a stepside it's geared perfect for take-off and gas mileage (it's just weird that it gets this gas mileage and I wanted to see if anyone else got it DON'T ARGUE ABOUT IT OR GET MAD I was just asking a question)

Chris Senior Enthusiast

Chris

Posted
Posted

Hey before the started putting E10 everywhere my truck stock with the 4.8 got 23 on the highway while I drove at 80.

hockeypro1411 Senior Enthusiast

hockeypro1411

Posted
Posted

:mad: it's possible just I doubt 4 people can screw up the math to figure out gas mileage and come up with it the same

 

Don't worry about it man; I believe you. The truck in my sig gets 26 MPG pulling my 32' enclosed car trailer on the highway. I reckon it would do 30 MPG no problem without the trailer!

 

 

 

 

:jester:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,866
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Greg3160
    Newest Member
    Greg3160
    Joined

  • Who's Online   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 363 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • MANGOAL
      Mangoal or FitcamX OEM Dashcam?

      By MANGOAL · Posted

      Late reply, but yes—it works on the SLT trim. Compatibility comes down to the plastic shroud shape behind your mirror, not the trim badge itself. On the SLT with auto-dimming, it uses a plug-and-play Y-harness off the mirror/rain sensor power, so no need to run wires down to the OBD port. If anyone's ever unsure about fitment, just drop a photo of your mirror housing and we can double-check it.   Appreciate the detailed feedback on the install! On the windshield glare—we actually took feedback like yours and developed a dedicated CPL (polarizer) filter to cut down dash reflections on sunny days. If you're still running the cam, shoot me a DM. I'd be happy to send a CPL filter over for you to test out—no charge. 
    • davester
      2002 GMC Yukon

      By davester · Posted

      There are no stickers in your glovebox?
    • davester
      Weight limit in bed

      By davester · Posted

      Look at the numbers on the stickers in the door jam...
    • EJS2015
      Actual Full Screen CarPlay on Refreshed Silverado/Sierras.

      By EJS2015 · Posted

      Yes, every time the developer updates his code, you must recompile. I will private message you with the latest because it changes pretty much with every version.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Transmission Temperature Hitting 220s

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      After I wrote that reply I went for a ride. 85 F out. So trans started at 85 F and it shifted the same as it did an hour latter at 168 F. I've never actually recorded the to cold to shift point but it is under 32 F before they start hanging on to a lower gear or leaving the converter unlocked. Both intended to heat fluid.    Yes, brake or bake. Absolutely.      Your welcome. True research ended decades ago. Field trials are still in play.    There is a thing called oxidation onset temperature. This is the heat related oxidation not the O2 exposure kind. For mineral oil that starts at 140 F. So what happens after 140 F? Each 20 F cuts fluid life in half! Does using a Full Synthetic improve that? Yes! By how much? Depends on the base oil type and a few other factors. But enough to notice. Some esters are even higher. There are even synergies between types the will raise it higher than any one component is alone.    Then there is "Hindered" oils. Antioxidant additives. Hindered Polyol Esters can sit at 500 F for years in a turbine.   When a blender brags his oil will 'take 500 F" in service he doesn't specify for how long. Water will dance on a 500 F hot plate for several seconds. @newdude put up a chart showing the relationship between fluid temperature and it's life in an automatic transmission. Here's a version of that chart for Group III based oils. These temperatures are those in the pan as observed as 'normal'. that is you drive as you do for as long as you do under what load you ask of it and whatever that temperature is this graph applies to. Flash temperatures of a few minutes isn't what his means.    Note that fluids held at a constant 240 F have a service life of only 20K miles. 220 F explains the factory exchange limit, eh? My equipment I keep under 180 F and I'm good if the cooler will hold it as low as 140 F. But that's me.   

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...