MPG

[diyer2]

My 1977 Chevy 1/2 ton 350 got 10- 12 mpg.

MY 2012 5.3 gets 15.6 mpg.

For fun:

My 70 Nova 350 street, 1/4 mile racer got 5 mpg.

I would like to get 18 or more mpg out of my 2012.

It Is what it is.

Durability is more important to me than mpg.

I would rather buy fuel than motor parts.

 

 

 

[Donstar]

28 minutes ago, mookdoc6 said:

The V-8's are extremely refined and durable...GM absolutely made the correct call to continue on the platform.  They are 100% better than the competitions and parts will be available for very long time because of this move.  I think the LT's are Awesome! 

I agree.  GM was wise to keep their very popular V8's while introducing their new generation of trucks.  I do believe that as we transition to vehicles less dependent on fossil fuels, the measure of performance will become less focussed on the number of cylinders.  Currently GM is making bold moves to prepare for future demands.  Zero emission vehicles are an achievable target and getting there will be a rocky road for many.  I love driving a 1/2 ton and as long as it propels itself in a manner consistent with other vehicles it will continue to be my vehicle of choice.  I would not be shocked if GM drops the 5.3 and/or the 6.2 after their new engines enter the market.  My guess is that they will keep one in the stable for awhile like Ford did with their 302. (5L)

[diyer2]

There is no such thing as a Zero emissions vehicle.

Wrong label.

Manufacturing, electricity to charge batteries, manufacturing and replacing batteries, parts manufactured  to repair the vehicle all contribute to pollution.

The correct label could be reduced emissions vehicle.

[towdog333]

I drove my 19 down on I - 95 just for 16 miles just to see what fuel mileage I would get doing 55 to 60. I was getting 21 mpg before I got off 95 ,don't know yet what it would have been if I would have driven further .I know when I came back from TN on I - 81 doling 70 to 75 I got 18 mpg 

 

 

 

 

 

[RAYS B4U]

I made a 275 mi round trip a few weeks ago and received 23.7 mpg, figured the old way, total miles divided by number of gallons used. My High Country has the 6.2 and is showroom stock. Fuel used was non-ethanol, 92 octane, route was mostly flat, minimal traffic, no full throttle passing blasts, cruise control set at 63.

 

I was quite pleased since the best I ever received in my old 2003 Silverado SS was right at 19 mpg.

[towdog333]

1 hour ago, RAYS B4U said:

I made a 275 mi round trip a few weeks ago and received 23.7 mpg, figured the old way, total miles divided by number of gallons used. My High Country has the 6.2 and is showroom stock. Fuel used was non-ethanol, 92 octane, route was mostly flat, minimal traffic, no full throttle passing blasts, cruise control set at 63.

 

I was quite pleased since the best I ever received in my old 2003 Silverado SS was right at 19 mpg.

I could see you getting that mileage doing 63 but at higher speeds it drops big time. Does the 6.2 

require high octane

[RAYS B4U]

8 minutes ago, towdog333 said:

I could see you getting that mileage doing 63 but at higher speeds it drops big time. Does the 6.2 

require high octane

It says inside the fuel filler door "Premium Fuel Recommended".

[3737]

On 11/30/2018 at 9:08 AM, diyer2 said:

There is no such thing as a Zero emissions vehicle.

Wrong label.

Manufacturing, electricity to charge batteries, manufacturing and replacing batteries, parts manufactured  to repair the vehicle all contribute to pollution.

The correct label could be reduced emissions vehicle.

Yeah, a lot of mining going on to make batteries with rare earth metals. Also in my area a lot of electricity comes from burning coal so not even reduced emissions, lol. And if not coal emissions, then spent nuclear fuel or damming up rivers or list goes on. There is a cost to make power in any form. Electric cars make people feel better by giving them some distance from the polution they are responsible for, lol

[3737]

2019 Silverado gets worse MPG than the 2018 model. WTF hahahaha!

 

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2019-chevy-silverado-1500-fuel-economy/

 

[flowbytwo]

I suspect I will have a pretty low average with 80mph speed limits around here... I am seeing 12.5mpg average over the first 400 miles with my AT4 6.2 and I have a pretty soft foot and I split my miles 50/50 town and highway. It is probably worth mentioning that the temps have been 15-20F. 

[towdog333]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 2:24 PM, 3737 said:

2019 Silverado gets worse MPG than the 2018 model. WTF hahahaha!

 

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2019-chevy-silverado-1500-fuel-economy/

 

A lot of questions no good answers

[Mardo]

I have been getting between 17 & 18 around town on my new AT4 with the 6.2. . I got over 21 on a 200 mile trip today driving 58 mph.  My gas mileage went up when I started using 93 octane with no ethanol.

[fishingtruck]

Would anyone have an approximate MPG while towing a boat or 3500 lbs ?

[3737]

On 12/12/2018 at 8:45 AM, towdog333 said:

A lot of questions no good answers

this link has a little more info, but still...

 

https://www.autonews.com/article/20181207/OEM03/181209808/some-2019-gm-pickups-will-have-lower-mpg-than-outgoing-models

 

“While aerodynamic efficiency increased 7 percent and the automaker cut out hundreds of pounds on the redesigned Silverado, Chevrolet says the frontal area also increased — resulting in the same aerodynamic load.”   (But it gets worse mpg??? Not the same mpg. So all that reduced weight (450 lbs) that they talked so much about is more than canceled out by the newly styled front end?)

 

"We increased towing capacity, payload, and it's a much larger bed and a much larger cab,"   (Not sure how making the inside of the bed a little bigger has anything to do with the question of worse mpg other than its just smoke and mirrors)

 

“GM was able to offset much of the aerodynamic drag for models with other engine options, which experienced small increases in fuel economy, with new technologies such as dynamic fuel management and higher-speed transmissions.” (Seems so counterproductive and expensive to design new engines and transmissions to just compensate for the new frontend design… craziness)

 

[Grumpy Bear]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 1:22 PM, 3737 said:

Yeah, a lot of mining going on to make batteries with rare earth metals. Also in my area a lot of electricity comes from burning coal so not even reduced emissions, lol. And if not coal emissions, then spent nuclear fuel or damming up rivers or list goes on. There is a cost to make power in any form. Electric cars make people feel better by giving them some distance from the polution they are responsible for, lol

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? No free lunch? How dare they!