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

looking for small MPG gains, I know lol, ported TB or TB spacer?

Old Mar 2, 2011 | 05:36 PM
  #21  
Turbo Silverado's Avatar
Teching In
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
From: Florida
Default

A TB spacer works better as a paper weight and WAI sounds like a bad idea. I would try some fuel system cleaner. I have always thought that it was a scam untill I actually tried it. Maybe it was just a coincidence but I used it about every other fill up for a month and i went from 10.5 MPG to 12 MPG in my 07 Tundra. I would also make sure that your mass air flow sensor is clean.

Last edited by Turbo Silverado; Mar 2, 2011 at 05:56 PM.
Reply
Old Mar 9, 2011 | 10:34 PM
  #22  
White2500's Avatar
On The Tree
15 Year Member
Liked
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
From: Flowery Branch
Default

I get like 8-10... Maybe 12 or so on the highway. I tries the "baby the throttle" method. Not fun to drive like a grandpa and have shitty cars blow their horn at you and flick you off.

But on topic, doesn't more power mean less work for the engine to operate at higher efficiency or is that what we tell ourselves to justify going fast?
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2011 | 10:18 AM
  #23  
Jordan927's Avatar
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
From: Victoria BC Canada
Default

Read an interesting article yesterday actually about fuel economy....

It appears that through all our advances in technology, when it comes to new engines, fuels, oils ...etc etc....the early 80's when fuel injection was introduced was the point where everything got its biggest increase in fuel economy and actually attained the best economy.

A 1980, the Honda Civic gets 33 MPG...A 2011...it gets 30 MPG

Nissan Sentra...1982 36MPG....2011, 29MPG

Back than, the primitive form of testing they had for MPG though...those cars only got in the 20's....using one of those cars today on modern economy testing equipment...its a different story.

I have a buddy with a 68 Karmen Ghia...he averages 32MPG, on a 1.6L carbed 51hp engine and 4 speed trans.

Its not the vehicles that got more efficient from the looks of things...its the testing that has gotten massaged to reflect larger numbers.
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2011 | 10:58 AM
  #24  
DV2000NJ's Avatar
13 Second Truck Club
15 Year Member
iTrader: (10)
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 1
From: Central NJ
Default

Originally Posted by Jordan927
Read an interesting article yesterday actually about fuel economy....

It appears that through all our advances in technology, when it comes to new engines, fuels, oils ...etc etc....the early 80's when fuel injection was introduced was the point where everything got its biggest increase in fuel economy and actually attained the best economy.

A 1980, the Honda Civic gets 33 MPG...A 2011...it gets 30 MPG

Nissan Sentra...1982 36MPG....2011, 29MPG

Back than, the primitive form of testing they had for MPG though...those cars only got in the 20's....using one of those cars today on modern economy testing equipment...its a different story.

I have a buddy with a 68 Karmen Ghia...he averages 32MPG, on a 1.6L carbed 51hp engine and 4 speed trans.

Its not the vehicles that got more efficient from the looks of things...its the testing that has gotten massaged to reflect larger numbers.
I'm sorry, but no.

You have to realize that the 1980 Civic that got 33mpg weighed just over 2000lbs, and had under 60hp. The 2011 Civic that gets 30mpg has almost three times the horsepower and weighs over 500 lbs. more.

If you're trying to say that engines haven't become more efficient, you're just flat out wrong.
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2011 | 01:11 PM
  #25  
Jordan927's Avatar
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
From: Victoria BC Canada
Default

Originally Posted by DV2000NJ
I'm sorry, but no.

You have to realize that the 1980 Civic that got 33mpg weighed just over 2000lbs, and had under 60hp. The 2011 Civic that gets 30mpg has almost three times the horsepower and weighs over 500 lbs. more.

If you're trying to say that engines haven't become more efficient, you're just flat out wrong.
Not engines...vehicles

Engines are definitely more efficient...but you now need 3 times the horse power to move the vehicles around. so fuel efficiency suffers.

but you would think that 3 times the power but only an increase in weight of 25% the MPG would have increased....and by much more than it has.

I have even driven my share of 80's pickups with 305's that got 18-20 MPG. They couldn't get out of they're own way they were such dogs...but you could still haul a load or a decant size trailer with them.

Last edited by Jordan927; Mar 10, 2011 at 01:17 PM.
Reply
Old Mar 15, 2011 | 01:28 AM
  #26  
offroadrider12's Avatar
TECH Regular
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 426
Likes: 1
From: Michigan
Default

I would say your biggest improvement would be from a tune with lean cruise enabled.
Reply
Old Mar 17, 2011 | 10:35 PM
  #27  
slow.8's Avatar
TECH Enthusiast
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Default

the guys who have done the 6-speed t56 swap seem to get pretty decent highway mileage.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Oobray
8-Lug Truck Performance
70
Jun 13, 2022 03:38 AM
Noah Burns
GMT K2xx Trucks General Discussion
12
Oct 5, 2015 06:46 AM
Aboss
GM Engine & Exhaust Performance
1
Aug 11, 2015 09:05 AM
RONIN LSX
GMT 800 & Older GM General Discussion
7
Aug 10, 2015 04:45 PM
rojeho
GMT 800 & Older GM General Discussion
0
Jul 12, 2015 06:10 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 AM.