Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 9/8/2019 at 7:28 PM, SierraHD17 said:

Weird.  I easily get the 14-15 mpg average with my 2017 6 liter 3/4 ton.  That's all highway as there is no urban anything here.  And my truck is leveled, 295/60/20 tires and 4.56 gears....

Don't see how......

Posted
This thread makes me glad I have a 6.6 diesel....
 
 
 



Not when it throws a code, de-rates and leaves you on the side of the road ruining your 3k mile camping excursion [emoji2957]
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, kenny_r said:

 

 


Not when it throws a code, de-rates and leaves you on the side of the road ruining your 3k mile camping excursion emoji2957.png

 

 

I hear ya, but running them for 12 of last 15 years I've never had one leave me on the side of the road.  :thumbs:

 

 

Edited by redwngr
  • Like 3
Posted

[emoji106][emoji106] for all the guys that have issues with them, there are plenty that go 100-200k miles without a glitch, usually it’s the folks running them hard.

Posted
16 hours ago, ickyoldman said:

Don't see how......

Matter of driving style.  A driver can influence fuel economy by 33%.  Fleet studies have shown that.  Same vehicles and different drivers.

 

When I was using regular E10, I could average about 14 mpg with my 2015 2500 6.0 with slightly oversized BFG KO2 rubber and back end dropped 2"  for all miles... town, gravel, rural, highway, etc.   Highway trips of 95% highway, I could get 17-18 mpg.  Not quite getting that now due to using E30 fuel, but the cost is lower so the actual cost per mile is about the same.   About the same cost per mile if I was using a diesel getting better mpg, so since I don't need a diesel, I don't have one.  Just in my semi truck.

 

 

Posted
18 hours ago, redwngr said:

I hear ya, but running them for 12 of last 15 years I've never had one leave me on the side of the road.  :thumbs:

I hear ya about the Duramax, I've had 3 of them now, 2 LMMs and a LML, but the emissions stuff (DEF/DPF) did leave me stranded once on the LML.  The DPF and DEF was the only real weak link on the the D-Max after they got the injector issues worked out on the first gen.  There are days I wish I had a gasser, yet I always go back to being thankful I have a diesel. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Colossus said:

I hear ya about the Duramax, I've had 3 of them now, 2 LMMs and a LML, but the emissions stuff (DEF/DPF) did leave me stranded once on the LML.  The DPF and DEF was the only real weak link on the the D-Max after they got the injector issues worked out on the first gen.  There are days I wish I had a gasser, yet I always go back to being thankful I have a diesel. 

Indeed, they both have their place and strengths. I really liked my Duramax, but once it was close to warranty, I decided to let it go and get a gas burner. For what I do, which is pull a 5th wheel and my normal driving, the gasser is fine. If we pulled more in a mountainous area, it'd be a different story. Most of our pulls are in foothills and flatlands and if I use it as a DD, it's a 2 mile each way trip. Hearing the engine turn up, especially at elevation, was the biggest thing I had to get used to when I went gasser. Having been around older gas farm equipment, I knew they liked to rev to do the job. I tell folks that laugh to take the turbo off a diesel or put one on the gasser and then compare. Then you'd have an even playing field! LOL! In jest, yes, but a difference maker for sure.

Posted

Finished a long driving trip with party of four to illinois to florida and back.   Tennesee hills highway got me like 14-15mpg.   When I was in coastal Florida on state highways (55-60mph limit)...My computer estimated over 20mpg.  
 

truck drove great, just a pain in the ass to park.

 

3500 HD crew cab 6.6 gas

 

 

  • Like 1
  • 1 month later...
Posted

I’m finding if I drive it “normally” I get better fuel mileage than if I take it super easy and try to save gas. So far, that’s been the case at least. 

 

I can can tell you as it breaks in I’m definitely starting to feel more and more power. I love this engine so far. 

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Limelight said:

I’m finding if I drive it “normally” I get better fuel mileage than if I take it super easy and try to save gas. So far, that’s been the case at least. 

 

I can can tell you as it breaks in I’m definitely starting to feel more and more power. I love this engine so far. 

It’s the first vehicle I’ve had that seems to get better on cruise versus manually driving it . We’ve had heavy winds all week too . I expect it to do better when the weather calms down 

Edited by Carolina
  • 1 month later...
Posted

Posting an update with a few more fill-ups.
Truck is daily driver. 80% highway 20% urban. I hook up a 24ft livestock trailer or a 35ft flat deck about 2-3 times per month.

My DIC is consistently 1-2 mpg higher than the real mileage and my "best avg" numbers are way higher than anything I've ever gotten on a tank.

Anybody else using fuelly care to share? ae7acb5e3bb7db4052695060c33eafa5.jpg25edc196204c8d49deebf663252a9871.jpg

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Posted

So it basically get the same as a 6.0 if not worse.lol.


I guess on the flip side it is making more hp/tq but it’s also using 3.73’s instead of 4.10’s. Seems like more coulda been brought to the table.

  • Like 2
  • 2 months later...
Posted

I just picked up my 2500 gas.  In the manual it states to use 93 octane (premium) for best engine performance and best MPG.  Ive read this whole thread and I am confused on if majority are using reg unleaded (87 octane) or premium.  Pricing here in Cincinnati is on avg 1.99/ gal vs 2.39/gal.  Obviously if i am towing i would use 93, I am just wondering if reg is ok or comparable in performance.   

Posted (edited)
On 5/28/2020 at 10:21 AM, Luke Palmer said:

I just picked up my 2500 gas.  In the manual it states to use 93 octane (premium) for best engine performance and best MPG.  Ive read this whole thread and I am confused on if majority are using reg unleaded (87 octane) or premium.  Pricing here in Cincinnati is on avg 1.99/ gal vs 2.39/gal.  Obviously if i am towing i would use 93, I am just wondering if reg is ok or comparable in performance.   

My truck has almost 9000 miles on it, over 2000 of them towing my 42', 14,300 lb fifth wheel. The only thing I have put in it so far is 87 octane. I'm averaging 7.3 towing, 16 highway and 11.7 overall. Can't say if 93 makes a difference or not when towing, though. Perhaps others up here can shed more light on that aspect. Congrats on the new truck and enjoy!

Edited by ShotgunZ71

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...