Jump to content

6.6L gasser MPG with new 10 speed Allison tranmission?

campah

By campah
in 6.6L Gas V8 (L8T)

 Share

Recommended Posts

campah New Member

campah

Posted
Posted

Hey All,

 

This is my first post and I'm glad I found this forum.  I'm considering a new '24 GM Sierra gasser with the 10 speed Allison transmission.  I looked through quite a few pages and couldn't find a thread pertaining to MPG on the new 6.6L with this tranmission configuration.  I'm looking to use the truck for a hauling a truck camper and I haven't owned an HD struck before so please pardon my ignorance.


What MPG have you been getting on the freeway and also around town?  If you have a truck camper, what have you been getting unladen and laden?  

 

If you came from a previous 6.6l gasser with less gears, how has this been doing in comparison?  Was it worth it for the upgrade (as I'm also considering a used truck).

 

Thanks All,

 

Matt

 

 

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

kylant
kylant

sorry man. lofty expectations that are not going to be realized

the8rotor
the8rotor

Gas mileage is the same between 6L90 and 10speed, I've had both. I get anywhere between 11-13.5mpgs city and 18/19mpgs highway ripping around the toll roads in Texas.    Towing my 10-12k cam

UWSkier
UWSkier

I did a freeway run this morning in my truck too.  10 speed 6.6, speeds 75 to 80 mph.  Best 25 mile stretch was 19.3 but I got 18.4 over the 160 mile round trip, verified at the pump.  It was my first

Posted Images

the8rotor Enthusiast

the8rotor

Posted
Posted

Gas mileage is the same between 6L90 and 10speed, I've had both. I get anywhere between 11-13.5mpgs city and 18/19mpgs highway ripping around the toll roads in Texas. 

 

Towing my 10-12k camper, I get 5-11mpgs depending on winds on the highway. My camper is very tall.

  • Like 3
Another JR Senior Enthusiast

Another JR

Posted
Posted

I think the OP is talking about a slide-in truck camper. I have a Four Wheel Campers pop up truck camper and I get about 15-15.5 mpg with the camper on and around 17.5 with it off when driving 65-70. It only weighs 1800 lbs. Of course, a tall, heavy non-pop-up camper will be a whole different story. 

campah New Member

campah

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yes, I am planning on hauling a solid walled, slide-in truck camper using a 3500.  I'm coming from a Tundra that gets 13-19 MPG.  Those are very reasonable numbers when comparing your HD trucks to my Tundra.  

 

Anyone seeing better numbers if they put on a tonneau type cover?  

Another JR Senior Enthusiast

Another JR

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, campah said:

Yes, I am planning on hauling a solid walled, slide-in truck camper using a 3500.  I'm coming from a Tundra that gets 13-19 MPG.  Those are very reasonable numbers when comparing your HD trucks to my Tundra.  

 

Anyone seeing better numbers if they put on a tonneau type cover?  

Single rear wheel or dually? 

Edited by Another JR
Another JR Senior Enthusiast

Another JR

Posted
Posted

I bought mine with the front camper springs option. I ended up switching the front springs back to the base springs for my model because my camper only puts 100 lbs static weight on the front axle, and I didn’t like the pitch up effect of the front suspension response being stiffer than the rear. If you get into considering camper springs I can offer advice based on my experiences. 

campah New Member

campah

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hey Jon,

 

Yes, I am most likely looking at getting the camper package, which should come with the heavier front end suspension.  From what I am reading, it will help with breaking when carrying a heavy load.

 

Was the ride uncomfortable when you weren't carrying your camper?

 

 

Pryme Senior Enthusiast

Pryme

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, campah said:

Yes, I am planning on hauling a solid walled, slide-in truck camper using a 3500.  I'm coming from a Tundra that gets 13-19 MPG.  Those are very reasonable numbers when comparing your HD trucks to my Tundra.  

 

Anyone seeing better numbers if they put on a tonneau type cover?  

My last truck was a 16 tundra owned it for over 5yrs. Tundra got only 1-1.5mpg more in most situations. Sometimes it’s just splitting hairs. I watched both closely on trucks display and both with a scan gauge. 

UWSkier Enthusiast

UWSkier

Posted
Posted

No truck campers in that thread but a few of us with this combo have chimed in there.  I've really grown to love my truck.

Salzette Enthusiast

Salzette

Posted
Posted

Without a camper getting around 12.5 on my crappy short city drives. Considering most of those have been no further than 2-5 miles with about 4-8 stoplights along the way, it’s not as bad as I thought it’d be…

Highway drives have been limited so far but been around 16-19 on those.

Another JR Senior Enthusiast

Another JR

Posted
Posted
On 9/25/2023 at 5:13 PM, campah said:

Hey Jon,

 

Yes, I am most likely looking at getting the camper package, which should come with the heavier front end suspension.  From what I am reading, it will help with breaking when carrying a heavy load.

 

Was the ride uncomfortable when you weren't carrying your camper?

 

 

I wouldn’t say the ride was uncomfortable (for a 1 ton truck) with the stiffer springs, but the unloaded ride is noticeably stiffer with the the camper springs. I ordered my 2021 3500 cclb with the camper springs (not plow package) rated at 5600 FGAWR. The base springs would have given a 5200 lbs FGAWR. 
 

More important to me than the stiffer ride, the rebound response of the front suspension with the stiffer springs was faster than the rear suspension. This caused the front end to pitch up when going over dips at highway speed. It was worse with the camper on because my camper puts very little weight on the front. It might have been curable with different shocks, but I didn’t need the weight capacity and I wanted the softer ride. I bought the 5200 lb springs and swapped them in. 
 

The camper springs did make the truck stiffer in roll, which would be a benefit with a hard sided camper’s higher cg. 
 

I would suggest researching the weight and fore/aft cg of the camper you are buying, and then calculate the load added to the front axle by the camper.   If it doesn’t add at least 300 lbs to the front axle weight I’d stick with the base springs. 
 

On the other hand, if you think you may wish you had bought them, go ahead and buy them. It only costs $600 plus labor to change them and it’s an easy job. I’d rather have the higher axle rating on the data plate with lower rated springs than vice versa. 

  • Like 1
MORSNO Enthusiast

MORSNO

Posted
Posted

When loaded with a hard sided camper expect a drop in mileage to around 9-10 mpg on average with a gasser, no matter what brand gas truck you get.  If you get strong headwinds expect much less.  I'm happy on really long multi week trips to get between 9.5-10 if I keep my highway speed down to 65mph with my previous generation truck with a 6.0 and 6 speed.

IMG_3594.jpg

FreakBeast Enthusiast

FreakBeast

Posted
Posted
On 9/24/2023 at 9:46 PM, campah said:

Hey All,

 

This is my first post and I'm glad I found this forum.  I'm considering a new '24 GM Sierra gasser with the 10 speed Allison transmission.  I looked through quite a few pages and couldn't find a thread pertaining to MPG on the new 6.6L with this tranmission configuration.  I'm looking to use the truck for a hauling a truck camper and I haven't owned an HD struck before so please pardon my ignorance.


What MPG have you been getting on the freeway and also around town?  If you have a truck camper, what have you been getting unladen and laden?  

 

If you came from a previous 6.6l gasser with less gears, how has this been doing in comparison?  Was it worth it for the upgrade (as I'm also considering a used truck).

 

Thanks All,

 

Matt

 

 


Welcome Matt

 

I recently joined looking for info on ordering a new gas HD. Check out the ordering info posts on here if you do decide to go new. 
 

Check out “Fuelly” on the interwebs. It’s a site where you can track and research real life logged fuel mileage for different vehicles. Won’t get you info w camper but it’s pretty cool because it is real data. 
 

FB

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,913
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Smitty462
    Newest Member
    Smitty462
    Joined

  • Who's Online   5 Members, 1 Anonymous, 649 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      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. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      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.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      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.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      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...