GMT 800 & Older GM General Discussion 2006 & Older Trucks | General Discussion

2011 Siverado 5.3, GAS MILEAGE

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 22, 2011 | 07:34 PM
  #11  
oldred95's Avatar
TECH Resident
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
From: Enid, OK
Default

Originally Posted by iregret
Was your 2000 2wd and your 2011 4wd?

I had a 2002 that consistently got 19-20mpg. Now I have a 2000 that gets 16.5mpg. The only difference between the two is the 2002 was 2wd and the 2000 is 4wd. I didn't realize it would make that much of a difference.
It really shouldn't make much more than 1-2 mpg difference if that. When in 2wd you are only spinning the CV axles and spider gears on the front diff due to the left CVs fixed engagement in the spider gears. The carrier itself should stay put unless its a 99 or 00 where the front shaft turned all the time. The 2002s seemed to be the cream of the crop for the NBS. Right out of the box those 5.3 T motors ran strong and got great mileage for a full sized truck. My 99 all stock was an absolute sloth compared to my dads 02 of the exact same specs and even with 2000+ pounds in the bed his still ran better than mine.
Reply
Old Sep 22, 2011 | 10:58 PM
  #12  
AKlowriderZ71's Avatar
11 Second Hall Moniter
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,651
Likes: 10
From: Wyoming
Default

The 4x4's are higher in the air, that's one small ding on fuel economy. Also, many 4x4 owners end up putting on wheel/tire packages with much much more rolling resistance, and that's another ding on fuel economy. A big one actually.
Reply
Old Sep 22, 2011 | 11:01 PM
  #13  
ak2007r6's Avatar
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,104
Likes: 0
From: Alaska
Default

+1 on the motor breaking in. I just rolled over 14k on my 6.2 and have seen it go up 3-4 MPG from when I bought it. It's all about keeping your foot out of it though
Reply
Old Sep 22, 2011 | 11:12 PM
  #14  
AKlowriderZ71's Avatar
11 Second Hall Moniter
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,651
Likes: 10
From: Wyoming
Default

^^^Nooooooo, it's your tune!! lol
Reply
Old Sep 22, 2011 | 11:36 PM
  #15  
Coban's Avatar
TECH Addict
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,130
Likes: 0
From: League City, TX
Default

I bet your mileage doesn't improve. Seriously.
Reply
Old Sep 23, 2011 | 12:40 AM
  #16  
ak2007r6's Avatar
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,104
Likes: 0
From: Alaska
Default

Originally Posted by AKlowriderZ71
^^^Nooooooo, it's your tune!! lol
The tune and upgrading the intake tube was a noticeable difference for sure.
Originally Posted by Coban
I bet your mileage doesn't improve. Seriously.
Based on what??
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2011 | 04:58 PM
  #17  
chevz7102's Avatar
On The Tree
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Michigan
Default

My truck gets about 19-20 hwy 15 town. Im the winter its a diffrent story with 4x4 or auto 4x4 on then take away 2 mpg. 09 5.3l ccsb 4x4
Reply
Old Sep 26, 2011 | 05:44 AM
  #18  
rjwz28's Avatar
Man Motor club
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,623
Likes: 1
From: Sunniest city on Earth
Default

12 city, 16-17 highway with my tuned 2011 CCSB 6.2 3.73 4x4 leveled on 33s with 13k miles.
Reply
Old Sep 26, 2011 | 02:18 PM
  #19  
ak2007r6's Avatar
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,104
Likes: 0
From: Alaska
Default

Originally Posted by rjwz28
12 city, 16-17 highway with my tuned 2011 CCSB 6.2 3.73 4x4 leveled on 33s with 13k miles.
Be just a little lighter on the foot and those numbers will go up
Reply
Old Sep 26, 2011 | 03:59 PM
  #20  
rjwz28's Avatar
Man Motor club
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,623
Likes: 1
From: Sunniest city on Earth
Default

Not much. City yes, but I drove 2500 miles all highway at 75mph and averaged about 16.5mpg. Those tires really kill it.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 AM.