Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Have a 22 Sierra 1500 Limited, 6.2, 10 speed. Just did a major trip and got 22 mpg over the first 800 miles. Total trip was 2,400 miles with an overall mpg of 19.9. 
 

Was wondering if that is good, bad, or average for a 6.2?

 

Tom…

 

UPDATE

Just did a major road trip. Total of 3,910 miles and got a total of 19.2 mpg. Mostly interstate miles (3,460). Usually driving 5 - 10 over.  Looking like mileage in the 19s is about what I can expect from my 6.2 ten speed. 

Edited by Tom73
  • Like 1
Posted

Very average fuel mileage if you ask me. So many factors come into play with fuel mileage and you are getting basically exactly what the EPA rated that truck at. If you went slower at highway speeds, had zero idle time and no around time driving it would have been a higher average but that just isn't real world driving.

Posted

20 years later basically the same mileage as my Avalanche. Six less gears, no cylinder deactivation and a 373 gear. Half the maintenance cost and replacement cost. Progress.

  • Like 1
Posted

Brother in laws 1988 Pontiac Grand Am with the Quad 4 - 2.4 L got 30 mpg back then. Our 19 Honda CRV got the same mileage, smaller 1.6 L turbo motor. 

So how far have we come.

Posted

64 Chevy II , 230 .got 26mpg and passed emission test for new cars in the 80's with no problem, granted the emission tests were pretty primative back then

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, KARNUT said:

20 years later basically the same mileage as my Avalanche. Six less gears, no cylinder deactivation and a 373 gear. Half the maintenance cost and replacement cost. Progress.

Love the Avalanche. Had two. Traded the second one for the Sierra. Would have gotten a third Avalanche but they don’t make them any longer. Had 216,000 miles on it and no driveline issues. 

Edited by Tom73
Posted

I can name several gas and diesel vehicles that got mid and upper 20 miles per gallon from the 80s and 90s. The trick ponies there’re producing today with cylinder deactivation as an example. Aren’t for the end user’s fuel number. Across the board for the manufacturers it trickles up the numbers for them. There’re dilemma is instead of producing naturally high fuel mileage sedans with low profits. Their  aim is to push high profit large trucks and SUVs that are bricks through the air. And somehow in a controlled environment getting decent fuel mileage out of them. The new scam is electric trucks. Another way to meet their over all mileage numbers. That have  little use for the masses. I love trucks. I’m not paying a 20K up charge for a luxury truck. When I can have a high fuel mileage luxery car that hauls as$ and a good used truck for the same money. 

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Tom73 said:

Love the Avalanche. Had two. Traded the second one for the Sierra. Would have gotten a third Avalanche but they don’t make them any longer. Had 216,000 miles on it and no driveline issues. 

I met a guy yesterday that had several including the last year model. My 02 continues to be almost flawless and still looks new. 

Posted

I did trip this summer in my 2020 ram hemi from Detroit to Chicago and I got 24.7 mpg doing 70 mph one way loaded with 4 adults and bad full of language and one way alone  , I thought that was crazy good fuel milage for a full size truck with a v8, I have a video to prove it for non believers .

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Someone wiped out a Avalanche this week..more used parts in the system..

 

spacer.png

Edited by elcamino
Posted

Check out the NEW 2024 Chevy Silverado ( Elec. ) Look's like a Avalanche , same drop down window (rear ) same fins on box.

Posted
16 hours ago, Tom73 said:

Have a 22 Sierra 1500 Limited, 6.2, 10 speed. Just did a major trip and got 22 mpg over the first 800 miles. Total trip was 2,400 miles with an overall mpg of 19.9. 
 

Was wondering if that is good, bad, or average for a 6.2?

 

Tom…

Depends how fast you were going.

Posted
28 minutes ago, redwngr said:

Depends how fast you were going.

I’m not a speed devil. Usually 5-10 over. Ten on Interstates, five on secondary roads, and speed limit in town. Avoid cities like the plague. 

Posted
On 10/15/2022 at 5:19 AM, KARNUT said:

20 years later basically the same mileage as my Avalanche. Six less gears, no cylinder deactivation and a 373 gear. Half the maintenance cost and replacement cost. Progress.

You forgot cleaner engine emissions and a revised EPA testing program that makes it more difficult to obtain the inflated numbers your Avalanche was assigned.  Yesterday's cars will not achieve the same results as today's cars under the current testing. 

  • Like 1

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 2,212 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • So I'm in the middle of a DOD AFM delete on my 6.2 L86 Sierra. I had a pick holding the tensioner but after I got the Cam phaser gear off I was cleaning off all the rtv and apparently I didn't have the pick seated far enough in. I bumped it and the tensioner sprang forward.  I think everything is good but I want a second opinion. The top of the tensioner is just a looped piece of plastic that rides in that channel right? There is no spring or anything is there? I got the gear and chain back on and it seems tight and everything looks right. I'm hoping nothing fell out.
    • My 2015 1500 LTZ Silverado suddenly won't go into 4 x 4 low. It will go into 4 x 4 high.
    • Yep, just a quick reference point.    My main point being I’d do a thousand other things before I’d pay 10k for a transmission.    Speaking in ignorance cause I don’t look at these trucks, what is it worth? 20k?
    • I think users are going to want to pick their monitored parameters, which parameters they want to see first.    It should probably start with baseline at a minimum and adjust to learned, but be able to overlay baseline for comparison.   A simple severity level would be able to determine what type of alerting is appropriate or user selectable.    Why not use the OBD port though?   I think a phone connection would be a good idea, push notifications type deal.   Number 1 issue is having data is useless if you don’t know what the data should be under normal conditions. 
    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...