Yukon MPG

[redcar]

Just curious, what kind of MPG people are getting with their Yukons, my last fill up, I was able to get 22mpg, that's with an 01, 2WD, on an all highway trip. I was pretty impressed. I was thinking of installing a K&N air filter to maybe give the mpg a little more boost. Has anyone tried this, or other tricks with the ever rising prices of gas today?

[rgloston]

I have an '02 Yukon SLE, rated @ 14C/16H. I've gotten 15.2 MPG on my last road trip. Shocked about that. My Yukon has a 26 gallon tank. That's while running @ 80mph w/ A/C running. I'd like to know how you're getting more than that.

[redcar]

this trip was w/o running the a/c, last month on a trip NY to TN with a/c running, I averaged 19.5 consistently, w/cruise set at 65mph. If you have 4wd maybe that lowers your mpg?

[Lightgomez]

I have a 00Yukon denali and run a CONSITENT 14MPG. Now, if I run 80, 85...it jumps up to maybe 15-16mpg...If someone is getting 20+mpg..please share the secret...hahaha

[tonytone]

Originally Posted by rgloston

I have an '02 Yukon SLE, rated @ 14C/16H. I've gotten 15.2 MPG on my last road trip. Shocked about that. My Yukon has a 26 gallon tank. That's while running @ 80mph w/ A/C running. I'd like to know how you're getting more than that.

Granted that you were driving 80 w/ the A/C on, but unless your SLE came w/ a 6.0 engine (I doubt it but you never know) and/or you're running a 4.10 rear...you really should be seeing slightly better overall numbers than that. FWIW--if I can lay off the gas every once in a while, I can get anywhere between 15-17 mpg overall (17 if I don't run the A/C) in my DXL at 70 mph--especially given that my vehicle weighs 3+ tons w/ passengers and cargo, has a 6-liter engine, and rides on heavier-than-stock large wheels and tires.

[sunbeam7011]

Mileage is so subjective...many fail to post what gearing they have, engine size, 2WD or 4, towing package, etc. So here is mine:

I own an 04 Yukon 2WD with a 4.8 and 3.43 rear end with stock size tires. I have Gibson headers, K-N series 77 intake and a flowmaster muffler. After a lenghty break-in period (I use synthetic oil -takes longer to break-in) after 9,000 miles or so I got, and remain getting, between 17.4 to 18.3 consistantly in town. It now has 17,000. Highway drives, 75-80 MPH yeild about 21.5...not much more and worsen drasticly beyond 80 MPH+ (Its a small V-8 -more on this in a minute). Before 9,000 I was getting about 14 in town and 18 on the highway. Mileage improves once broke-in.

If I had a 5.3 it would do a bit better on the highway and a bit worse in town. Its a trade-off. I ordered the truck with the 4.8 since I dont 4WD or tow. In fact my truck does not even have a receiver hitch. But my in town (not really in-town since I dont drive in a typical stop and go; its somewhat mixed) MPG is great. I (my wife I should say) has a 2005 SSR 6.0 automatic with 3.73 rear that gets 15.5 or so in town but 24+ highway..so bigger engines (as I knew all along anyway) do better wound-out on the highway; they love to run. My 4.8 on the other hand; not as well on higher RPM's....they work harder=thus burns more fuel to propel the vehicle at high speeds. It's high school auto shop 101. Still holds true today. Many people think "Big SUV or car" or "Big engine" means gas hog (comparativley speaking) -not ALL of the time.

Thats why so often you see little jap SUV's and midsize SUV's dont get any better mileage (sometimes even less) than their large full-size counterparts ie-Yukons, expeditions, Tahoes. Certainly when it comes to highway driving or towing which lager V-8's are "more effecient" in this cenario. Again, big V-8's love to run and strech out on the highway -they were built for that.

[Denalix5]

Originally Posted by tonytone

Granted that you were driving 80 w/ the A/C on, but unless your SLE came w/ a 6.0 engine (I doubt it but you never know) and/or you're running a 4.10 rear...you really should be seeing slightly better overall numbers than that. FWIW--if I can lay off the gas every once in a while, I can get anywhere between 15-17 mpg overall (17 if I don't run the A/C) in my DXL at 70 mph--especially given that my vehicle weighs 3+ tons w/ passengers and cargo, has a 6-liter engine, and rides on heavier-than-stock large wheels and tires.

Can you actually get 15-17mpg. I have an 04 Denali short bus with 22's and I can't get any better that 14.9 on the freeway and 12.6 in the city. I also have a Volant intake and Corsa touring exhaust, but I still don't get anything near what you are getting. Does your DXL have the AWD and 6.0 engine? Do you run premium your truck? The only time I noticed a increase in MPG lately is if I ran premium in the tank and then I get an extra 1- 1.5 mpg.

[bcopeland]

This guy must have been coasting without the engine running to get 20+ MPG with ANY Yukon!

[Eggert]

Hi,
please state year, model, short/long, engine, 2WD/4WD and rear axle ratio.

2001 Yukon XL (long) K2500 (3/4 ton, 4WD) 6.0 liter, 4.10 rear.
11.000 lbs 38 foot camper.
14 Highway
10 City
7.5 Towing in the flatlands.
6.7 Towing to the White Mountains in New Hampshire from Connectcut.
5.5 Towing up and down the hills of Connecticut.
Take care, Eggert

[redcar]

[This guy must have been coasting without the engine running to get 20+ MPG with ANY Yukon![/quote]
No, but I'm no speed demon either,( I'm a very conservative driver) I drive 65 mph with cruise set, 2WD, 5.3L, not sure about rear end. I went for the 2WD, (wife doesn't drive in bad weather, do have TC though), with hopes of better MPG. From other posts maybe I was right. I have consistantly gotten 20MPG running a/c, Highway, and 14 to 17 in the city. The 22 MPG was W/O ac.

[Eggert]

Hi redcar, I forgot to give my thoughts to your question.
There is only one optimal fuel to air ratio.
Any free flow air filter will let more air in so that you can burn more fuel to get more power.
As a side note, I have a K+N 'cold air' and do not like the added racket it makes.
I only use it during the towing season and then return to stock.
The factory air filter also is a 'cold air' system...
you can get a K+N filter for that, costs about $40 instead of the $250 for the full thing.
Take care, Eggert

[Mapman48]

I now have a 2000 denali 4w/drive that gets 16 mph hwy driving. One of my last trucks was a 97 gmc surb. with the 5.7. It would always get 19 to 20 mpg hwy driving. Have been a little disappointed in my new truck.

[dacarter]

I get 30MPG with the 4WD on, in heavy mud.... ok, not really. Have an 01 XL 4WD 5.3, have no idea about the rear gears, and get max 17 on the hwy, usually between 16 and 17 doing 70.

I too have a great deal of trouble believing some of the high numbers above. GM has increased the highway rating lately, but not over 20 for sure.

[sunbeam7011]

I too have a great deal of trouble believing some of the high numbers above. GM has increased the highway rating lately, but not over 20 for sure.[/quote]


.......What?! Are you serious? A 4WD I would bet does not get over 20 on even the highway...most vehicles described above are 6.0 liter XL's and 4WD. --Monsters. What else would you expect? But mine, a 2WD 3.43 rear and 4.8 liter (pussmobile) gets 21-22 highway if running around 70-75 no problem. In town average about 18. I varify this all the time when I fill up. I check and zero out the computer at every fill and I occasionally check the mileage against the receipt with a calculator. By the way, the on board computers (or calculators) are pretty much nuts on in my experience. In fact I'm very suprised and happy to see how accurate they are. HOWEVER the milage to go or RANGE feature of the computer seems abit on the conservative side...I believe they intentionally do this so you wont run out of gas. But otherwise the other features of the computer are accurate.

I have also done some performance upgrades that help the economy I'm sure. How much I really dont know.

Anyway mileage gets worse beyond 75 in my case. These trucks really could use a 5th gear to drop about 500-600 RPM..then we (I) would see something closer to 25 at these speeds. I run an annual trip from Az to Illinois and running on I-40 "out west" thru New Mexico you can really set the cruise on high. I ran once as I recall going about 85+ between Amarillo and Clines Corners NM and got about 18 MPG......but thats haulin' ass especially for a little 4.8. So yes I too have received mileage below 20 in this case.


Keep in mind guys that these things are trucks. They are not bought by the "fuel pinching" person. Thats why they have Kias. Also keep in mind they have the areodynamics of that found in a loaf of bread. They are bigger and heavier too. But pound for pound, the GM gasoline V-8 is very hard to beat in performance and combined economy.

[tonytone]

Originally Posted by kk7ac

Mileage is so subjective...many fail to post what gearing they have, engine size, 2WD or 4, towing package, etc. So here is mine:

<stuff snipped for brevity>

I (my wife I should say) has a 2005 SSR 6.0 automatic with 3.73 rear that gets 15.5 or so in town but 24+ highway..so bigger engines (as I knew all along anyway) do better wound-out on the highway; they love to run.

Perhaps so...but then again, a 6-liter SSR doesn't weigh as much as a long-bus Denali (SSR listed curb weight is 1000 lbs. less than a DXL), isn't AWD, and is a bit more aerodynamic--relatively speaking--than the DXL--all factors that can affect overall fuel economy.

Also, if bigger engines do indeed perform better (fuel economy-wise) wound-out on the highway...then why are the EPA highway mileage estimates for a RWD 4.8L Tahoe the same as that for a 4WD 5.3L Tahoe (both rated at 20 mpg hwy per Edmunds)? Yes--the 4WD 5.3L is roughly 200 lbs. heavier than the RWD 4.8L, and the drive type is different between the two, but I reckon the EPA figures on the 4WD weren't obtained while the vehicle was in 4WD mode, and 200 lbs. in itself isn't gonna cause a 1-mpg difference. So...if what you say is true, then why doesn't the 5.3L have better EPA hwy numbers? But I will agree with you on one thing you stated--mileage is indeed subjective, and can be "tweaked" by many factors...such as:

--What was the outside temperature? If you think your mileage was great even in 90-degree heat, imagine how much better it could be in 60-degree temps? Plus, in 90-degree heat, I betcha the A/C was probably running constantly...

--Speaking of A/C--and this is meant more for DenaliX5--I can get high 15's to 17 if I can force myself to not use the A/C. Living here in the Sacramento area during the summer, it is almost impossible to not have the A/C on while driving...especially when you have three small kids in the back.

--Yes, I'm running premium in my DXL, but that's because I have a custom tune designed to perform w/ premium gas; I could probably eek out a bit more if I could get my PCM tuned for higher octane since here in CA 91 is the highest widely available octane. Sure, that would probably explain why I could get decent mileage, but keep in mind that I swapped out my factory wheels and tires for a set that's 20 lbs. heavier at each corner. Unsprung weight can affect fuel economy--not a whole lot, but it can.

--Are your numbers based on a full tank of gas? From day one?

--Are you obtaining your numbers from the DIC, or by observing how much gas you actually pump into your vehicle? And even if your numbers are based in part on pump numbers--are you calculating based on when the pump nozzle first clicks, or after you top off? I mean, sometimes I can squeeze in almost two more gallons of gas after the pump nozzle clicks off, w/o having gas overflow out the nozzle. If I were to calculate fuel economy based solely on when the nozzle clicks off, I could cough up great numbers too.

--I can "tweak" my fuel economy numbers favorably by driving on roads with numerous and/or lengthy downhill grades. Case in point--if I drive home from Lake Tahoe (6000+ feet above sea level) to the Sacramento area (roughly 200 ft. above sea level) on a cool fall day in my DXL w/ no A/C and going no faster than 70 mph (except while going downhill, where it would be to your benefit to coast as fast as you safely/legally can, since you are not burning lots of gas while doing so), I probably could darn near hit 20 mpg overall. I mean, heck--if I build up enough speed on a good downhill grade, I can get the DIC to display an instant fuel economy of 99 mpg (and it would probably be higher than that if it weren't for the DIC display limitation)...now, how's that for excellent fuel economy?

dacarter--yeah, I can get 30 mpg too...with a full load of passengers and cargo...while pulling a boat...with the A/C going all the time...while riding on underinflated tires...and a really dirty air filter...going uphill...all this while going into a headwind! I'd be surprised if any all-stock 5.3L and larger-engined Yukon/Tahoe/Suburban/Denali could get 20 mpg hwy under normal operating conditions. A 4.8L RWD short-bus unloaded w/ no A/C perhaps, but a 5.3L? I'm not saying that it's impossible, but you'd have to have ideal conditions to get 20 mpg hwy out of a stock 5.3L SUV.