Quote:
Originally Posted by 66LSx
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)
|
My point was that I'm well aware of the LSx series--the fact I just bought one would seem to indicate that, ya know?
Also, my OP wasn't really about maximum fuel economy--it was/is about the relative fuel economy of the more aerodynamic car vs. the trucks.
Not really much of an auto fan in general; I personally like that extra pedal to the left. The 4L60E (and 700R4, for that matter) is pretty well known as a problematic/weak/short-lived transmission (at least in stock form). I might stick an old TH400 in something if I just want to act stupid (drag racing), but other than that the autos don't really do much for me.