Jump to content

Just hit a new best of 32MPG with my 5.3

mrbflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

mrbflat Enthusiast

mrbflat

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Wow, these are some outstanding numbers for a full size pickup!!!  I think some of my gains are from old age.... you hit 50 and things just change, haha, my driving habits have definitely progressed to the slow lane.  I knew I was over the hill when I found myself riding for days without having the radio on, and I pay for XM!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Luc1f3r
Luc1f3r

LOL what are yall doing, drafting big rigs to get these numbers? Best ive done on a long trip is 20. 19 at4 with 6.2 and 35s.

mrbflat
mrbflat

OK, sure, it's just over a 25 mile range, but it's still the best I've seen in the 28k miles on the truck so far.  I'm not sure what changed, but recently my mpg just seems better. Overall, I'm still

BIGDOGx
BIGDOGx

Yeah i can only laugh at some of the estimate mileage ratings from people here and not a chance is either a 5.3 or 6.2 getting 30 mpg, not unless you are driving down a mountain.🤣

Posted Images

redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, mrbflat said:

Wow, these are some outstanding numbers for a full size pickup!!!  I think some of my gains are from old age.... you hit 50 and things just change, haha, my driving habits have definitely progressed to the slow lane.  I knew I was over the hill when I found myself riding for days without having the radio on, and I pay for XM!

Some of us seniors never shut the radio off....

 

 

  • Haha 2
superhighsierra Enthusiast

superhighsierra

Posted
Posted

Keep in mind nearly all of these people in this thread have 3.0 diesel. 

 

With a 5.3 and stock tires you can get 22-23 if you absolutely baby it, but then you are stuck with a stock truck. 

 

I have a 5.3 with 34.1 inch Duratracs on stock 20's, removed the lower front valence, have a leveling kit and get ~20-21 if i really baby it around town. About the same on the highway. Unless you want to go 55-60 on the highway in cruise,  you aren't getting over ~21 on flat ground with bigger tires. 

 

Everything is a give and take. Don't want a 3.0L Diesel as that engine makes zero sense, and don't want a stock truck. If you own a half ton pickup truck and are overly worried about the gas mileage, not sure what to tell you. 

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, superhighsierra said:

Keep in mind nearly all of these people in this thread have 3.0 diesel. 

 

With a 5.3 and stock tires you can get 22-23 if you absolutely baby it, but then you are stuck with a stock truck. 

 

I have a 5.3 with 34.1 inch Duratracs on stock 20's, removed the lower front valence, have a leveling kit and get ~20-21 if i really baby it around town. About the same on the highway. Unless you want to go 55-60 on the highway in cruise,  you aren't getting over ~21 on flat ground with bigger tires. 

 

Everything is a give and take. Don't want a 3.0L Diesel as that engine makes zero sense, and don't want a stock truck. If you own a half ton pickup truck and are overly worried about the gas mileage, not sure what to tell you. 

Most people have different ideas on modifications. Mine were performance related. I stayed with stock size tires. I wanted my truck to blend in instead of the hey steal me look. Even going extreme with a super charger I got advertised fuel mileage. With my 14 having the 355 radio. I got 22 MPG at 72 mph, 23 on 65 mph two lanes. That’s with cylinder deactivation off. I did pull the blocks out to lessen the rake. I like a tad lower.

BB68 Enthusiast

BB68

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, superhighsierra said:

Keep in mind nearly all of these people in this thread have 3.0 diesel. 

 

With a 5.3 and stock tires you can get 22-23 if you absolutely baby it, but then you are stuck with a stock truck. 

 

I have a 5.3 with 34.1 inch Duratracs on stock 20's, removed the lower front valence, have a leveling kit and get ~20-21 if i really baby it around town. About the same on the highway. Unless you want to go 55-60 on the highway in cruise,  you aren't getting over ~21 on flat ground with bigger tires. 

 

Everything is a give and take. Don't want a 3.0L Diesel as that engine makes zero sense, and don't want a stock truck. If you own a half ton pickup truck and are overly worried about the gas mileage, not sure what to tell you. 

 

I own a half ton because I have found that a capable S10/Canyon with get less mpg than 5.3/6.2 1/2ton  

redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, superhighsierra said:

Keep in mind nearly all of these people in this thread have 3.0 diesel. 

 

With a 5.3 and stock tires you can get 22-23 if you absolutely baby it, but then you are stuck with a stock truck. 

 

I have a 5.3 with 34.1 inch Duratracs on stock 20's, removed the lower front valence, have a leveling kit and get ~20-21 if i really baby it around town. About the same on the highway. Unless you want to go 55-60 on the highway in cruise,  you aren't getting over ~21 on flat ground with bigger tires. 

 

Everything is a give and take. Don't want a 3.0L Diesel as that engine makes zero sense, and don't want a stock truck. If you own a half ton pickup truck and are overly worried about the gas mileage, not sure what to tell you. 

Whether or not certain engine makes sense, depends on performance objectives.

 

Applies to all 4 engine offerings. 

 

Same logic applies to mid-size/LD/HD platform choice.  

  • Like 2
superhighsierra Enthusiast

superhighsierra

Posted
Posted
On 7/3/2023 at 11:58 AM, redwngr said:

Whether or not certain engine makes sense, depends on performance objectives.

 

Applies to all 4 engine offerings. 

 

Same logic applies to mid-size/LD/HD platform choice.  

 

For the sake of conversation, what would be the performance objectives of a 3.0L Duramax? Genuinely curious as all i can see is: 

 

-More expensive fuel that negate any offset in MPG

-More expensive price tag

-~80 less HP

-Slower 0-60

-Less towing capacity than a 5.8 by over 2,000lbs

-More expensive routine maintainence 

-More expensive long term maintenance

-Harder to work on

-Riddled with problems, newer engine

+80lbs more of torque that means what if it has a a lower towing capacity lol climbs a hill a ball hair faster?

 

Objectively the 3.0L is a "V6 Diesel." Zero performance 

 

Huge fan of Diesel in 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. IMHO, never understood the appeal, whatsoever of the baby duramax. 

BB68 Enthusiast

BB68

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, superhighsierra said:

 

For the sake of conversation, what would be the performance objectives of a 3.0L Duramax? Genuinely curious as all i can see is: 

 

-More expensive fuel that negate any offset in MPG

-More expensive price tag

-~80 less HP

-Slower 0-60

-Less towing capacity than a 5.8 by over 2,000lbs

-More expensive routine maintainence 

-More expensive long term maintenance

-Harder to work on

-Riddled with problems, newer engine

+80lbs more of torque that means what if it has a a lower towing capacity lol climbs a hill a ball hair faster?

 

Objectively the 3.0L is a "V6 Diesel." Zero performance 

 

Huge fan of Diesel in 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. IMHO, never understood the appeal, whatsoever of the baby duramax. 

 

I guess we would need to know what exact engine youre comparing because the displacement and capacity are incorrect. The premium my 6.2 requires is more than diesel 90% of the time and the 3.0 is pretty equal to it towing wise. 

 

I agree the maintenance is going to much greater and lets face it, if you own a modern diesel past warranty you have some pretty big kahunas. 

 

What I dont understand with the 3.0l baby max is with as low and large as its torque curve is, why does it need 3.73 gears for max tow package? The gas engines with higher rpm curves would greatly improve their ability here...

 

With current fuel prices I considered a diesel but the flashbacks of being a diesel tech for 20 years kept me from doing so with the limited amount of miles I use the pickup during winter months. 

 

Screenshot_20230705-150005_Samsung Internet.jpg

Edited by BB68

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

    • KARNUT
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By KARNUT · Posted

      It really is comical when people don’t agree or see the reason some people prefer the older vehicles. They become condescending. All the while they may be busting their knuckles on old vehicles. I have found memories of swapping out engines in my old GM cars in a weekend without much hassle. Unlike today. One wrong move a computer will shut you down. Even on something as easy as a brake job. There’s a pretty comical YouTuber called the car wizard. A garage owner who puts it all in perspective. Another Vicegrip garage that’s shows just how tough the old stuff is. 
    • Jsdirt
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jsdirt · Posted

      I was around and remember that era very well, so I'm calling b/s on that statement. If they were that bad no police department or taxi company would've bought a single one ... but they were used in both services (and fire) for DECADES. They were bulletproof and proven. Even the early 21st century ones weren't too bad! The early models were legendary.   Mine is proof, but people like atlas are blinded by agenda and refuse to believe facts right before their very eyes.   Even decades after they were built, a new generation started driving them, posting all their builds and shenanigans on Grandmarq.net and Crownvic.net. The failures would show up then, since they all were deep past 100k-150k miles by that point, and younger drivers tend to be a little aggressive, especially with vehicles than can lay a one-tire fire for as long as you hold your foot in it. They've more than proven themselves over the decades.   The only thing that'll really take them out is road salt. The bodies and sheet metal were garbage. A victim of the cheapout FoMoCo and GM have been partaking in before then, and since.   Today it's the stuff that counts - the undercarriage that rots away first!    GMs Caprice was no slouch either. Reliable as a stone ax - the opposite of what they build now.    
    • Jsdirt
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jsdirt · Posted

      Let me know how your vehicles do in 10 years. You don't know ******, kid. 😂    There's a reason that Panther platform was used as police, fire, and taxi service for DECADES ... long before you were born, apparently.
    • davester
      Disconnecting Battery

      By davester · Posted

      If your connector also has a big lever to get the connector on and off, you don't want to force the lever either way, as it becomes a bigger problem if you bust the lever or the mechanism it works.
    • davester
      Disconnecting Battery

      By davester · Posted

      It's just useful to disconnect the battery to prevent odd shorting out when unplugging/plugging stuff together.  I also  touch the two cable ends together (after disonnecting) to drain the small amount of stored battery energy in various modules.   I believe the main system where you need to be more concerned with, so you need to do the above and then wait some time, iss when you are working on the air bag system, to prevent inadvertent firing of the air bags.   The in-cab switches are just that, plain switches, it's generally not a problem to swap them in/out.  For my '12, I'll get an error message on the dash if I power up the truck w them unplugged, but that's it (power up= turn the ignition on).   The ITBC located above the spare tire is a computer that manages the trailer brake system.  That is probably more important to have the battery disconnected.  It does have to be programmed to the truck, either before or after it's installed, for it to work.  For my '12, I had a very hard time reinstalling the main connector to it (IDK if yours is the same or not), it turned out the silicon seal was jamming up, preventing it from going on all the way.  I finally got it fully installed by lubing the seal with a bit of dielectric grease, then it slid on and latched in place easily.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...