GAS Mileage - how to make it better.

[jeverett]

Originally Posted by BlenderWizard

De-screening your MAF is not good, and all the mileages on this page are highway, read the poll. You need to buy something by Monday

I agree about the descreening. I've de-screened mine, and now wish I had a frickin' screen to put back in it...its supposedly screws with the air readings and makes the truck run funny....just my luck

[White Lightening]

Originally Posted by jeverett

I agree about the descreening. I've de-screened mine, and now wish I had a frickin' screen to put back in it...its supposedly screws with the air readings and makes the truck run funny....just my luck

Couldn't you get a screen from EBay or a junkyard ???

[bigd7315]

I have a 92 3500 with the 454 with the 4l80e tranny and 4.10 limited slip rear end I get 8 around town and 14 on the hwy I do uderstand the power to weight and gas mileage so when I tip the scales at 7800 lbs empty I understand I am not going to get much better but I will try anything cause I have a big tank and the fillups are over 100$

[Z71_Texan]

I am new to this board and just read the first post in this thread. I just purchased another Z71, had a 2000, now have a 2005.

While shopping, I looked at the Colorado, wanted a 4x4, crew cab, Z71 package. It was only rated at 22mpg highway. Really poor for an in-line 5, 3.5 liter engine with V V T (variable valve timing).

The Z71 I purchased is a crew cab, 5.3 liter, 3.42 rear end and it is rated at 19mpg highway. Only 3 mpg worse than the Colorado.

Also, the Colorado almost cost as much. Go figure.......

The Colorado may be a truck without a market.

[kenwood guy]

Originally Posted by Z71_Texan

I am new to this board and just read the first post in this thread. I just purchased another Z71, had a 2000, now have a 2005.

While shopping, I looked at the Colorado, wanted a 4x4, crew cab, Z71 package. It was only rated at 22mpg highway. Really poor for an in-line 5, 3.5 liter engine with V V T (variable valve timing).

The Z71 I purchased is a crew cab, 5.3 liter, 3.42 rear end and it is rated at 19mpg highway. Only 3 mpg worse than the Colorado.

Also, the Colorado almost cost as much. Go figure.......

The Colorado may be a truck without a market.

I agree that truck is cool but the gas and price cost are way off maybe gm made it so they can sell the silverado even more ????

[bigd7315]

What all engine could you get in the colorado

[bigd7315]

do they still make the 4.3

[White Lightening]

Originally Posted by Z71_Texan

I am new to this board and just read the first post in this thread. While shopping, I looked at the Colorado, It was only rated at 22mpg highway. Really poor for an in-line 5, 3.5 liter engine with V V T (variable valve timing).

Also, the Colorado almost cost as much. Go figure.......

The Colorado may be a truck without a market.

Texan, I agree - at least for me - a Colorado didn't compute. Some people think of a Silverado as "big and cumbersome". They want something smaller and more nimble and they think of smaller as being "sportier". That is the market for Colorado buyers. To me - I get 22 on the highway now with my 6.0 liter 1/2 ton. True - my turning radius - at 46 feet - isn't the most "friendly feature" of the Silverado. But the cab space, comfort, hauling capacity, and crash standards all make it a much better size - even if it does take up a few more square feet when parked in the garage or parking lot

[Z71_Texan]

Originally Posted by bigd7315

do they still make the 4.3

Not for the Colorado. Theh offer a in-line 4, 2.8 liters (I think) and the in-line 5, 3.5 liters.

[BlenderWizard]

Originally Posted by Z71_Texan

Not for the Colorado. Theh offer a in-line 4, 2.8 liters (I think) and the in-line 5, 3.5 liters.

Yep, If they'd put the damn 4.2L I-6 in it, I might have considered a Colorado. WTF is up with that anyway? Colorado is the most underpowered truck in its class... and the 4.2 would put it on or above par with everything else in its class. Not to mention, all the offer in the H3 is that I-5. WTF is wrong with the engineers in charge of engine choice for these vehicles? The Colorado and the H3 would have been sooo awesome if offered with the I-6. Hell, the I-6 is rated at 16/21 MPG, which is only 1 MPG less than the I-5, and GM cited fuel economy as the reason they went with the I-5 in the H3

[White Lightening]

New learning for me - about the sweet spot.

We all know all of our trucks have sweet spots - each a bit different than the other. Well over the last 2 days I really got a chance to test my truck's mileage potential.

2 identical long trips - all highway - several hundred miles per trip. First trip - I was late - driving at 68 mph - on cruise. 17.7 MPG was the result. Then same day - second trip - I was not late and I didn't have to hurry - so normal driving speed of 55 mph - on cruise. 21.6 MPG was the result. A 22% improvement under IDENTICAL conditions except for speed. By driving 55 (on cruise - no foot and accelerator issues) instead of 68 (on cruise - again, no foot or accelerator issues) - a 22% change. Obviously the RPM and axle/wheel combination at 55 is preferred over 68 for my truck.

[BlenderWizard]

ttt

[KylePBZ]

So what were the rpm's turned at each different speed? What gears does your truck have and what tire diameter is it?

[White Lightening]

Originally Posted by KylePBZ

So what were the rpm's turned at each different speed? What gears does your truck have and what tire diameter is it?

RPM wise - at 55 mph I'm at about 1500 RPM and at 68 mph I'm about 1950 to 2000 rpm. Axle ratio is 3.73. I have 20 inch tires and wheels with a 6 liter v.h.o. V8 gas engine using premium gas. 4 speed automatic transmission.

[BlenderWizard]

ttt