Mileage

Page 1 of 2  
Just found this message board,and thought I would try it out. I just bought an '04 GMC 2500 HD Extended cab 4x4 with the 6.0 and 4:10 gears. It has 5100 miles.I`ve only had it 3 days.
I was just wondering what kind of mileage to expect. This will be a daily driver,with heavy towing (6000 lbs) in the summer months. Any input would be great. Thank-you!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I got a 1993 chevrolet silverado sportside with over 350,000 kilometers on it and it still runs strong with only the tranny replaced because I wanted to.
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:53:47 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Jim J) wrote:

----------------------------------------------------- users trucks from this group listed below ----------------------------------------------------- http://users.eastlink.ca/~mikemcneil/index.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nice to hear your truck is still running strong,but yours is a whole lot different from mine. Engine,transmission,everything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Also,whatelse could I do to increase performance and or mileage? Just wondering!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Typical hot-rod tricks will increase performance & mileage on most any late model engine.........cat-back free-flow exhaust, un-cork air-box assy. full length hedders, PROM chip, etc etc etc As i have said b4, internal combustion engines are nothing but oversize air-pumps. The easier it is for them to inhale /exhale the more efficient they will run.
-- Mad-Dog '79 Chevy K-10 Slightly modified http://mad-dog16.tripod.com /

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Does any make a cat back system for this,or would it be custom made?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm sure everybody and their brother makes a cat-back system for your truck up to and including Edelbrock, Gibson and others.
--
Mad-Dog
'79 Chevy K-10
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Reprogram the computer after installing a high quality, high flow exhaust and headers. A bolt on supercharger would really give you a BIG kick in the pants...if you can swing the money!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A Superchager would be the shit,but then my foot would always be in it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Screw efficiency...go for the gusto!!!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In my opinion if you can swing the payments on what hast to be a 35K dollar truck or more than you can swing more for gas. I am of the mind set to find what I can afford to buy, insure, and keep gas in. Want is one of the last things I put into the equation. You bought a Heavy duty truck. your going to get the kind of mileage a HD truck gets. If you wanted economy and power you should have spend more for the diesel or bought a smaller truck.
Just a few words of wisdom.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Screw efficiency...go for the gusto!!!
hehehe

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I can swing the gas bill,but this is ridiculous. 10.5 from a 366 c.i.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's really not that ridicules. I've a 5.7 liter with 3.42:1 gears and am lucky to get 14.5 to 15.0 mpg. Tow anything or run a little hard and that drops quickly to 12.5 to 13.0 mpg.
And big block Chevy's have never gotten anything that could be called good mileage.
Brian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's not really that ridiculous. It's the high numerical rear end and the overall weight of your truck that's the culprit. Have you taken a look at the frame on that thing? There's a lot of steel in that truck, plus I'm sure with it being a 4x4 the tires aren't exactly the type you'd want for the least rolling resistance.
Is it 366 cu. in? I thought it was a 383 - maybe I was wrong.
Cheers - Jonathan
--
Jonathan A. Race
Lieutenant, EMS Supervisor
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:48:20 GMT, "Jonathan Race"

the 6.0l is a 364ci
a 383 would be a 6.3l (6.27 to be exact)
the 4.8 is a 293ci the 5.3 is a 325ci the 8.1 is a 496ci
http://media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/powertrain/specs/05_truck_engine_specs.html
hth, Bret
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Liters are typically rounded...the 5.3 is a 327ci and the 6.0 is a 366. if I remember right, the terribly missed 350 was closer to 348ci. Try to get the exact ci-L conversion for the 350, 400, etc...close is the best it will get! Trying to get exact with the liter to ci conversion is pointless. Kind of like a 1000cc Motorcycle engine could be a 989cc or a 1004cc or anywhere around there.
wrote:

http://media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/powertrain/specs/05_truck_engine_specs.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:31:34 -0600, "Shades" <shades_1970(at)netins(dot)net> wrote:>: Liters are typically rounded...the 5.3 is a 327ci and the 6.0 is a 366.

umm... shades.. buddy... those ci displacements were taken directly from GM powertrain's website. That's why I gave the link.
-Bret
and the 350 is 349.85 CI...
2(cyl radius) * 2(cyl rad) * 3.14159(pi) * 3.48(stroke) * 8(# of Cyls) = 349.8474624

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well I think Bret is right about the figures and Shades is right about the rounding off aspect, "6 Liter" does actually equal 366 ci. The problem is the engine is really 5.967 Liters according to the '05 literature I have.ie, bore1.6mm,(the old 4"bore) and the stroke is 92mm(3.622")...364ci Brian O.
********************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dude, I stand corrected! I had heard different from GM Dealers...my fault for believing them huh?
Same result but different equation that I have used for YEARS...Its the same one I have found to be used by some of the best engine builders. I had to dig to find the equation that's why I didn't have it last post and was a bit off with my memory...4"(cyl bore)x4"(cyl bore)x3.48"(stroke)x6.2832(.7854x # of cyl's)49.848576ci
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.