View Single Post
Old 07-16-2014, 09:18 AM   #15
66LSx
Registered User
 
66LSx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 435
Re: Suburban vs. Impala (or similar) fuel economy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Submarine View Post
Uhh...I'm the guy that bought the $400 6.0L LQ4 the other day, remember? They are certainly very neat engines. Not a big 4L60E autotragic fan/supporter, though.
Unfortunately your 6.0L isn't a sipper like its smaller siblings in the MPG department (which was your original target topic).

The 4L60e does the job of a stock 4.8 and 5.3L especially when its in a truck with no weight/traction.

4L60e > 700R4.... which would be the other auto trans for MPG.

4L80e while larger also yields the lower MPG for more rotating mass.

4.8L Vortec / 4L60e in a burb or impala would yield nice mileage and you then then use 3.73 gearsets and not get butthurt in the city MPG like you would would 3.08's

4.8L and a T5 would be good too for MPG. (Again this wasn't a high horsepower build)

I'm expecting my 5.3L / 4L60e setup in the 66 C10 (stock) with simple long tubes/h-pipe to flirt with that mid 20's number. (If it can do low 20's in a crewcab 4x4 @ 5500#.... I should have no problem remaining/gaining MPG with 2000 lbs lighter). (Even given the garbage aero)
__________________
1966 C10 SWB Fleet
5.3L LM7 Vortec / 4L60e Swap
1966 C10 w/ 5.3L/4L60e Build Thread
2012 GMC Sierra 5.3L 4x4 CCSB
66LSx is offline   Reply With Quote