Any noticeable gains in MPG from anything you've tried? Headers?
01-25-2018, 11:15 AM
#21
Mines all stock, that I can vouch for... mine gets the best on 87, in fact I’ll go as far as to say I can feel the power loss on 93. These DI motors are sensitive, mine runs better when it’s warmer outside also. I suspect the fuel atomizes better with higher charge temps.
All the complete opposite of my 04.
All the complete opposite of my 04.
When I had my 2015 6.2 we tuned it. The power pick up was good and the afr was a lot more consistent but mileage never improved. Buddy tuned his 2014 5.3 truck and it's night and day for power... again mileage has not changed. Stock is pretty normal on these... the physics of a brick come into play.
Yes I tuned my 17 and it's just getting worse the more I do because the mods are not for gas mileage lol... not that I care anyway haha.
I will be honest that I have had at least a dozen tuned vehicles by different tuners and whatnot... not one got better economy after.
Yes I tuned my 17 and it's just getting worse the more I do because the mods are not for gas mileage lol... not that I care anyway haha.
I will be honest that I have had at least a dozen tuned vehicles by different tuners and whatnot... not one got better economy after.
are you wanting good mileage to save money, or just for bragging rights? you need to look for bang for buck if it's about saving money.
any additional mileage that you MIGHT get with that 93 octane will not equate to an $8 saving per tank over 87 or 89.
it's like people thinking e85 is the answer. yes, it's cheaper up front, but you fill your tank nearly twice as often. where is the savings?
any additional mileage that you MIGHT get with that 93 octane will not equate to an $8 saving per tank over 87 or 89.
it's like people thinking e85 is the answer. yes, it's cheaper up front, but you fill your tank nearly twice as often. where is the savings?
My last truck (04) got an additional 80 or so miles a tank on the 93 tune and costed $8 additional over 87. I call that enough of a wash to make it worth it. Especially considering it made more power on 93 and when I stood on it I liked having the little extra.
Either because I subconsciously drive different, or the tune had an impact, I picked up a consistent 2mpg after my last dyno run. I went from 10.5-11mpg city to a clean 13, and on the highway I moved from 13 to 15 unloaded.
Loaded I am still 8-9. It was like that stock.
Best it ever saw was 19mpg on the highway lol.
Loaded I am still 8-9. It was like that stock.
Best it ever saw was 19mpg on the highway lol.
Also keep in mind people lie, especially on the internet. Bragging about MPG is almost as bad as people bragging about HP 
Giving the benefit of the doubt, they may just trust the cluster info instead of actually measuring from the pump and dividing range by that. Also need to verify speedometer is calibrated correctly to tire size.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, they may just trust the cluster info instead of actually measuring from the pump and dividing range by that. Also need to verify speedometer is calibrated correctly to tire size.
Appreciate all the responses
Last edited by 00pooterSS; 01-25-2018 at 11:23 AM.
01-25-2018, 11:18 AM
#22
Oh and I called improved racing to see if they make a crank scraper for the truck, they aren't too expensive roughly $300 and free up a little power and drag.
But they said they don't make them for LT motors yet. They also said with the LT the windage tray is more efficient that on LS and is also bolted to the oil pan instead of the main caps. They also mentioned the tray on the LT looks to already have better scraping capabilities than on the LS and they felt GM had already taken that into account as a measure to increase efficiency.
Dammit.
But they said they don't make them for LT motors yet. They also said with the LT the windage tray is more efficient that on LS and is also bolted to the oil pan instead of the main caps. They also mentioned the tray on the LT looks to already have better scraping capabilities than on the LS and they felt GM had already taken that into account as a measure to increase efficiency.
Dammit.
01-25-2018, 02:34 PM
#23
With as much as most of us drive, if there was an "easy" button for more MPG, we all would have slapped that **** so hard by now lol.
I dont know the specifics of timing degrees vs MPG, but I havent run 87 (86 here in NM) in anything I own in a loooooong time. I suppose the easier fuel to burn (lower octane) technically has the physics to burn more completely in a stock vehicle. I am no engineer, and dont understand calculus enough to grasp the physics occurring in the engine.
Hit it with meth/water. Bet MPG goes up then :rofl:
I dont know the specifics of timing degrees vs MPG, but I havent run 87 (86 here in NM) in anything I own in a loooooong time. I suppose the easier fuel to burn (lower octane) technically has the physics to burn more completely in a stock vehicle. I am no engineer, and dont understand calculus enough to grasp the physics occurring in the engine.
Hit it with meth/water. Bet MPG goes up then :rofl:
01-25-2018, 07:46 PM
#24
With as much as most of us drive, if there was an "easy" button for more MPG, we all would have slapped that **** so hard by now lol.
I dont know the specifics of timing degrees vs MPG, but I havent run 87 (86 here in NM) in anything I own in a loooooong time. I suppose the easier fuel to burn (lower octane) technically has the physics to burn more completely in a stock vehicle. I am no engineer, and dont understand calculus enough to grasp the physics occurring in the engine.
Hit it with meth/water. Bet MPG goes up then :rofl:
I dont know the specifics of timing degrees vs MPG, but I havent run 87 (86 here in NM) in anything I own in a loooooong time. I suppose the easier fuel to burn (lower octane) technically has the physics to burn more completely in a stock vehicle. I am no engineer, and dont understand calculus enough to grasp the physics occurring in the engine.
Hit it with meth/water. Bet MPG goes up then :rofl:
01-26-2018, 10:27 AM
#26
3 MPG is big, makes me even more impatient to get the headers on. I'll go TSP when the time comes. Not sure on the catback yet. I'll cam Sam and get his opinion on that one. I'd like it to be stock quiet if possible. I'm over the loud exhaust days. After having true duals dumped for 4 years and driving over 60k miles that way I've had enough.
01-26-2018, 05:33 PM
#28
I'd like to do a dyno with the stock catback and with it disconnected to see real world results. There's some fast *** newer GM stuff with stock cat backs, but they are cts-v and vettes. This truck piping is fairly large for stock exhaust at 2.75" and mandrel bent, so there's a chance it flows well as is.
Back in the F body days you had to do full exhaust. There's a lot of header only stuff now, not sure yet if the trucks can do that, but with the 6.2 having 3.5" and the 5.3 having 2.75" the stock catback being good enough may be a thing.
01-26-2018, 06:29 PM
#29
The stock truck muffler is a big restriction I believe. I ran mine completely stock minus muffler for a while and it sounded pretty cool with only the stock resonator in place. The gain in throttle response after going to LTs and tune was another thing I felt like made a huge difference.
