Jump to content

Poor mpg

Clint623
 Share

Recommended Posts

Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted

mine got 15 city/17-18 highway when it was 100% stock.

 

its funny they have all this fuel saving technology on these shitboxes but they still get horrible mpg

I prefer driving a pickup and a truck has been my primary transportation since 1971. The new pickups get exceptionally good mileage over their predecessors which makes them a viable vehicle for everyday pleasure use. I thought I would have to give up driving a truck during retirement because of the cost of operating, but no need!

  • Like 1
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Sierra706
Sierra706

Not exactly surprising considering most of the information posted on this forum is how to remove said technology in pursuit of power, aesthetics, off road capability, etc      Sent from my iPhone u

dorkweed
dorkweed

Let's not forget the few asshats here that claim 25+mpg running 80mph; and the one that claims almost 30mpg.

Donstar
Donstar

I prefer driving a pickup and a truck has been my primary transportation since 1971. The new pickups get exceptionally good mileage over their predecessors which makes them a viable vehicle for eve

Posted Images

njk4o5 Enthusiast

njk4o5

Posted
Posted

I prefer driving a pickup and a truck has been my primary transportation since 1971. The new pickups get exceptionally good mileage over their predecessors which makes them a viable vehicle for everyday pleasure use. I thought I would have to give up driving a truck during retirement because of the cost of operating, but no need!

I don't know about that, my 2004 Silverado I traded in for my 2014 got a consistent 20mpg. and it had 212k when I traded it in. same cab config and both 4wd trucks. both 100% stock.

 

doesn't matter much now, with my new 35" tires ill be lucky to get double digit mpg

  • Like 1
Sierra706 Senior Enthusiast

Sierra706

Posted
Posted (edited)

mine got 15 city/17-18 highway when it was 100% stock.

 

its funny they have all this fuel saving technology on these shitboxes but they still get horrible mpg

Not exactly surprising considering most of the information posted on this forum is how to remove said technology in pursuit of power, aesthetics, off road capability, etc

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Bushleaguechew
  • Like 3
aseibel Senior Enthusiast

aseibel

Posted
Posted

I do know that all vehicles are tested on 100% pure gasoline and not an ethanol mix when the mpg ratings are developed for the vehicles during manufacture. So the sticker on the window will almost never be what you get.

 

Not to mention the EPA tests are done on a controlled course at something like 55mph. So the number on the the window sticker labeled "highway" is inherently false from the beginning.

 

If they want to tell us a true "highway" mileage, the test should be done at 70 mph min.

Donolie Enthusiast

Donolie

Posted
Posted

I'm wondering why I'm get really poor mpg. All I have is a lvl kit with all terrains and a k&n air flow. On average I'm getting about 15 with no trailer and feathering the gas pedal to keep in v4... I'm not sticking my foot in the floor board all the time to hear the k&n roar[emoji848]. I see a lot of you guys getting 16-19 with pretty much the same setup. I think I was getting better mpg without the k&n.

 

 

I average about 18, but my problem is trying to stay out of the throttle. Two weeks ago I got almost 20mpg on a tank, but I didn't go over 60mph, I tried again this week but was running late monday and tuesday the DIC is showing closer to 17 when on Sunday it was showing 21. I have Cold air inductions CAI, 33'' Duratrac, removed the front airdamn, trailer mirrors, magnaflow off road cat back.

Gadgetman53 Enthusiast

Gadgetman53

Posted
Posted

My daily drive is 8 miles each way in city traffic, so I average about 16 - 17 mpg if I'm lucky. When I go on trips, I easily get 22+ mpg on the interstate going 65-70 mph.

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

 

 

Let's not forget the few asshats here that claim 25+mpg running 80mph; and the one that claims almost 30mpg.

 

You have an interesting handle. I like it, It fits perfectly.

  • Like 1
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

I'm wondering why I'm get really poor mpg. All I have is a lvl kit with all terrains and a k&n air flow. On average I'm getting about 15 with no trailer and feathering the gas pedal to keep in v4... I'm not sticking my foot in the floor board all the time to hear the k&n roar[emoji848]. I see a lot of you guys getting 16-19 with pretty much the same setup. I think I was getting better mpg without the k&n.

 

 

Crew Cab Z71 5.3. Deep gears and a 4 X 4 with a lift kit and off road tires. Yea, your K&N has nothing to do with your mileage. Isn't hurting it anyway. I run one too. Replacement type.

 

I'm the a$$hat I believe 'dork weed' was referring to. :dunno: They put the same sticker on all the Silverado 1500's making one distinction only. 2WD or 4WD. 24 mpg and 22 mpg respectfully. that is highway mileage. Dollars to donuts says the one they tested was similar to mine. RCSB 4.3 WT1 2WD and then guessed from there and guessed WRONG. There is a half ton or more of weight difference between yours and mine. A liter in motor size. Your run a good deal stiffer gear ratio. (Z71) Are 4WD. Run off road tires. Lifted. I run a bed cover. That's the difference in trucks in a nutshell.

 

Drive wise, even if you are prudent, if your trips are under 35 miles in the summer or a hundred in the winter (between trips where you completely cool down) your never fully warmed up. (watch your trans temps as an indicator not the water temp) If those trips are urban then there is a great deal of interruption in those miles. Lots of accelerating the load and even if done mildly they take a fair amount of fuel. Late to initiate stops waste huge amounts of fuel. Scares the crap out of cross traffic too and kills the brakes. Stop lights/signs, trains and traffic patterns kill mileage as well. Weather and terrain have an effect. And lastly I'm here to tell you that the difference between 50 mph and 70 mph is HUGE. Even in my rig. There is a wall you hit about 53 mph where the air over the truck looses the boundary layer and the truck becomes like pulling a fish net though molasses. If I run 70+ into a headwind of only 15 mph I can drag mileage down to under 17 mpg. Same trip at 55 nets 24-26+ mpg. I can run 65 mph with a tail wind on the Interstate and pretty much get 28 mpg at will. Slower speeds have netting a high of 32 mpg for a full tank of over 500 miles on my tiny teeny 26 gallon cell. 30,000 mile average over 10 months is a dead 26.0 mpg.

 

Now, all that said. I an not implying you have all those habits but you know which ones apply. Use what you can and ignore as much as you like. I don't buy your gas. :seeya:

  • Like 1
Clint623 Enthusiast

Clint623

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

e611a7b15ab52fccc03dbf946ab3baae.jpg

I'm running KO LT285/65R18

I don't see a recommended tire pressure on actual tire. Just max of 80 psi

2.5 lvl kit

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Clint623
Clint623 Enthusiast

Clint623

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

9d5a9c93f8ada600bb47d8ebb82dd509.jpg

 

The 21 miles per gallon was in the hill country. I guess my truck really likes Central Texas

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Clint623
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

I'm running KO LT285/65R18

I don't see a recommended tire pressure on actual tire. Just max of 80 psi

2.5 lvl kit

 

 

It's going to be very close to your original sticker pressure in your door jamb.

bcbz71 Enthusiast

bcbz71

Posted
Posted

I'm wondering why I'm get really poor mpg. All I have is a lvl kit with all terrains and a k&n air flow. On average I'm getting about 15 with no trailer and feathering the gas pedal to keep in v4... I'm not sticking my foot in the floor board all the time to hear the k&n roar[emoji848]. I see a lot of you guys getting 16-19 with pretty much the same setup. I think I was getting better mpg without the k&n.

60f50355e5605bde276699d6f076d79d.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good looking rig. Getting 15mpg with a level and 285/65R18 sounds about right. I get about 17.5 average per tank with a level and smaller non-LT tires than yours. I expect when I go to 285 or 295 tires, I will be in the 15mpg range.

 

Post up some more pics of your rig with those 285s. I'm torn between the KO2s and the Nitto RGs.

Clint623 Enthusiast

Clint623

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Good looking rig. Getting 15mpg with a level and 285/65R18 sounds about right. I get about 17.5 average per tank with a level and smaller non-LT tires than yours. I expect when I go to 285 or 295 tires, I will be in the 15mpg range.

 

Post up some more pics of your rig with those 285s. I'm torn between the KO2s and the Nitto RGs.

I've got the regular KO's ( old style A/T) I saw the KO2's today and they look pretty awesome and pretty sure that's what I'm getting next. Nittos may be a little too aggressive for all the hwy driving I do

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dnt Senior Enthusiast

Dnt

Posted
Posted (edited)

6.2 8spd CC 4x4 I am seeing about the same mpg on this almost identically equipped 17 as I did my 16. Around 20.5 mpg average over 19,000 miles on the 16 and currently right at 21 mpg over 1500 miles on the 17. It really is mostly driving habits that produces the good mileage, I just like driving like a grandpa because I can. I know that if I wanted to I could burn over 90% of the vehicles on the road. I could probably take the OP's truck and wring out around 19 or 20mpg easily over several thousand (pretty boring) miles. So OP just drop it off with a credit card for fuel and I will run it a few week or months to see what we can get mpg.

Edited by MyFavTruck
  • Like 1
Clint623 Enthusiast

Clint623

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

6.2 8spd CC 4x4 I am seeing about the same mpg on this almost identically equipped 17 as I did my 16. Around 20.5 mpg average over 19,000 miles on the 16 and currently right at 21 mpg over 1500 miles on the 17. It really is mostly driving habits that produces the good mileage, I just like driving like a grandpa because I can. I know that if I wanted to I could burn over 90% of the vehicles on the road. I could probably take the OP's truck and wring out around 19 or 20mpg easily over several thousand (pretty boring) miles. So OP just drop it off with a credit card for fuel and I will run it a few week or months to see what we can get mpg.

We can trade. I'll pay for gas in your truck and you do the same for mine.

[emoji106][emoji857][emoji389]

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Clint623

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

    • PunchT37
      Parking Brake - Automatic Engagement Questions

      By PunchT37 · Posted

      I have a `25, 1500 that auto sets on incline. Never knew that at first. I have the electronic shifter. Just think if it didn`t do that? Unlike a mechanical shift that you can muscle out of park, how would you get this thing out? That would be a problem.   What I found out later is, I don`t have to push the button to release. Just put it in gear.   Setting parameters? Don`t know if it`s possible.
    • SoCal Angler
      Parking Brake - Automatic Engagement Questions

      By SoCal Angler · Posted

      2023 GMC 3500 HD, SLE, 6.6L Gas, 4x4, 6 Spd Options:  SLE Convenience Package; Driver Alert Package 1; Spray on Bedliner; X31 Off Road Package; TRAILERING MIRRORS, HEATED POWER -ADJUSTABLE, AUTO DIMMING, WITH TURN INDICATORS WHEELHOUSE LINERS, REAR INC. REAR AXLE - 3.73 RATIO INC. GVWR, 11,350 LBS. (5148 KG) INC. FRONT AND REAR PARK ASSIST, INC. ULTRASONIC     I have been launching my new boat and noticed some things related to the parking brake.. I usually set the parking brake (habit) when on flat ground for typical driving.    When backed down on the launch ramp to launch the boat and I place gear selector into Park, the parking brake activates automatically. My second nature is to set parking brake manually and noticed I was turing the parking brake off.  The parking brake appears to be setting itself automatically.   I looked all over my owner's manual and only found references to being on an incline and manually setting parking brake, or at times parking brake will be auto engaged, but nothing specific to my situation.    When is the parking brake automatically engaged?  Under what specific circumstances?  Can the auto set parameters be changed?     I like the auto set feature.  It would be nice if always engaged when shifted into Park and released when shifted out of Park (like my wifes 2025 RAV4).   Thanks!    
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...