Jump to content

Huge difference, large mpg loss 65 mph to 70 mph. Any idea what may be causing it, my gears?


Recommended Posts

Posted

I commute 5 days a week on my 5.3L/6 speed, been doing it for years. Did it on a 2014 double cab and a crew cab. Crew cab was a few hundred pounds heavier.

Really didn't notice much difference in fuel mileage between the two to care about.

Bear in mind, I'm in Florida and the road is flat as can be. We get windy days, but I've never paid attention to that. But wind can be pretty restrictive.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, HeySkippyDog said:

I commute 5 days a week on my 5.3L/6 speed, been doing it for years. Did it on a 2014 double cab and a crew cab. Crew cab was a few hundred pounds heavier.

Really didn't notice much difference in fuel mileage between the two to care about.

Bear in mind, I'm in Florida and the road is flat as can be. We get windy days, but I've never paid attention to that. But wind can be pretty restrictive.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Tapatalk
 

What do you mean flat?  What about all them hills (highway overpasses) every mile or so?  ?

 

There does seem to be a slight grade to I-95, we get less mpg going north and better heading south, generally speaking.  The grade is contrary to prevailing winds, on the east coast anyway.

Posted (edited)

I was getting readings of 10.5L/100km (22.4usmpg) on stock tires. When I put on my 33x12.5 10 plys I get on average 13L/100 (18mpg) at 65mph if I up it to 70-75mph I am looking at 15.5L/100 (15mpg). 33x12.5R20, CAI, 6.2L 8L90e 3.23. It seems to shine when im on the slower secondary roads at around 40mph, I can get it to 19-20mpg

Edited by L86 All Terrain
  • Like 2
Posted
I was getting readings of 10.5L/100km (22.4usmpg) on stock tires. When I put on my 33x12.5 10 plys I get on average 13L/100 (18mpg) at 65mph if I up it to 70-75mph I am looking at 15.5L/100 (15mpg). 33x12.5R20, CAI, 6.2L 8L90e 3.23. It seems to shine when im on the slower secondary roads at around 40mph, I can get it to 19-20mpg


Loss of mpg’s will definitely happen every time you’re adding larger tires. Considering my truck is lifted, running heavier wheels and tires, I’m definitely good with what I’m getting. Mostly depending on wind activity, I’m averaging 18-20 mpgs on the highway at 65-70 mph, 17-19 mpgs at 70-76 mph.

f26e370d717d86aadfd2d8b681589550.jpg


Sent from Above
  • Like 1
Posted

^ Yeah nice truck. Lots of members here will tell you they have a 6" lift on 35's and get 24mpg at 75mph, it's just not the case. But comparatively my current truck has about the same mileage as my old 1998 350 on 29" highway tires, and I have nearly double the HP on tap. My 2010 5.3L on 33's was better than my current 6.2L on 33's.  

Posted
11 hours ago, L86 All Terrain said:

 My 2010 5.3L on 33's was better than my current 6.2L on 33's.  

But nowhere near as fun when you stomp on the gas pedal!

  • Like 1
Posted
What do you mean flat?  What about all them hills (highway overpasses) every mile or so?  [emoji3]
 
There does seem to be a slight grade to I-95, we get less mpg going north and better heading south, generally speaking.  The grade is contrary to prevailing winds, on the east coast anyway.
Hell I can't tell. Been driving it for years between Eau Gallie and 46.

Sent from my SM-J810F using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted
21 hours ago, HeySkippyDog said:

Hell I can't tell. Been driving it for years between Eau Gallie and 46.

Nice area, good times at the Titusville Rifle and Pistol Club.

  • 11 months later...
Posted

With my 6" lift and 35x12.5s I get about 22mpg at 60, 20 at 65 and about 17 between 70 and 75.

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

    • Congratulations Isttype, on your gmc. Really like my 2024 2500hd sle doublecab now with 85,500 miles.  I checked the oil today at 4800 miles since last oil change and barely reading on the stick.  I don't care if GM says it's Acceptable adding a quart every 2000 miles because that is 100% BS, It is not a 1966 Harley Shovelhead! Sounds like it's setting up a future failure like I had with my 1500 6.2l. Other than oil consumption problems, I really like the 6.6l gas and 10 speed is really nice.  Towed a light 4000 pound trailer last week and averaged 14 mpg.  I was pretty impressive that a 7300 pound gas truck did 14mpg towing, Later-
    • Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing   Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.    http://papers.sae.org/600190/:   http://papers.sae.org/850215/:   Up to 75% of  engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.   So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.    How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".      https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.      Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.    There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.    The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:      Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.   It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.     
    • I don't think you will need a split, separate product, etc., the OBD port should be able to deliver everything you need. Since your device would be plugged into it all the time, it wouldn't miss anything.    Hardware in this case will be the easiest part of your project - ELM 327 devices will already deliver all the data you need. Reporting/software is where your advantage/marketability is.
    • I do too. I’ll never be stuck again 😂
    • It has happened to me a few times. I carry a jumpstart-tire inflator with me.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...