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.
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, firstname.lastname@example.org (Jim J)
users trucks from this group listed below
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
The easier it is for them to inhale /exhale the more efficient they will
'79 Chevy K-10
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
and the 350 is 349.85 CI...
2(cyl radius) * 2(cyl rad) * 3.14159(pi) * 3.48(stroke) * 8(# of Cyls)
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
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
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.