6.0 gas miledge

[bagged68chevy]

Getting 9 around town any tips or tricks......it has a cold air intake and dual exhaust

[60ratrod]

Custom tune. Thats about the only way to really improve your mpgs after an intake and exhaust. Also a tune up if you haven't done one in a while
Posted via Mobile Device

[usmcchevy]

X2 Tune is best bang for buck. Intake and exhaust don't seem to effect mileage much.

[bagged68chevy]

Who would u have tune. Or should i buy a programmer and do it myself.....

[72freak]

Thats about as good as it gets with the 6.0......You have to wonder about GM....they had a perfectly good 5.7 that did great with fuel and plenty of power....so to make it better...they stopped producing it and made an under powered 5.3 and the 6.0 that gets crappy fuel economy!

Good going guys!

[bagged68chevy]

Ya i kno lol should got a dmax i guess

[usmcchevy]

Shon on here can do it. I had mine done by Black Bear performance. I've had Wait For Me performance do one, but never again.

[Justin87]

My older brother (silverado06HD) as his name states has an 06 Silverado HD with a cold air intake, hypertech programmer, leveling kit, and 33in tires and still gets around 20 mpg.

[bagged68chevy]

Wat gears id like more info on that truck

[Justin87]

Stock 4.10s I'll try to get some more info from him or make him post on here lol.

[swb85]

Originally Posted by 72freak

You have to wonder about GM....they had a perfectly good 5.7 that did great with fuel and plenty of power....so to make it better...they stopped producing it and made an under powered 5.3 and the 6.0 that gets crappy fuel economy!

Good going guys!

That underpowered 5.3 still made between 35-70hp more in stock form than the vortec 5.7, and it does it with 27 less cubic inches and less emissions in a lighter package, with the potential to reach reliable power levels that a vortec 5.7 couldn't dream about. That's an improvement in my book.

[bagged68chevy]

Id rather have a 5.3 than a 6.0

[usmcchevy]

Originally Posted by bagged68chevy

Id rather have a 5.3 than a 6.0

Depends on what you have and what you are trying to do. 5.3's in stock form are more pepy so more enjoyable to drive. 6.0's from the factory are VERY de-tuned yet will pull a heck of a lot more. It doesn't help 6.0's mostly come in front of a 4l80e which takes more power to turn than a 60e. Get a good tune and they both wake up nicely.
5.3/6.0 vs old 5.7, the newer motors like to rev and thats where they make power. The older 5.7's made power at a lower rpm, but still won't hang with a 5.3 or 6.0

[stovboltguy]

hi bagged68, my girlfriends 99 5.3 smokes my 2000 6.0 in fuel mileage and power. both have similar mileage but the 99 gets around 18-20 mpg to the 2000 14-16 mpg. complete tune up,right tire pressure about your best bet. both trucks also run synthetic oil as well.

[nxtruck]

Originally Posted by swb85

That underpowered 5.3 still made between 35-70hp more in stock form than the vortec 5.7, and it does it with 27 less cubic inches and less emissions in a lighter package, with the potential to reach reliable power levels that a vortec 5.7 couldn't dream about. That's an improvement in my book.

I have to agree with 72freak on this one. While you make some good points about the power potential and slightly higher hp of the LS engines ( of which I am a big fan! ), my experience has been that the 96-99 vortec powered Subs or Tahoes pull better AND get better mileage. If I was building a race truck, then the LS motors definitely deserve strong consideration, but for my daily driver, I personally could care less about anything other than pulling power out of the box and decent fuel economy. I don't want to have to spend money on a tune and other bolt-ons just to try and equal what my '96 Sub. could do without this, not to mention having 240,000 miles on it. And yes, I have owned both and am now on the hunt for a clean, lower mile 96-99 Tahoe to replace the '01 Sub. that I'm currently driving.
BTW, I'm not knocking the LS engines. I own a '00 Camaro SS that I absolutely love! I just think that GM could have done a better job when using the 5.3 or the 6.0 in their fullsize trucks.

[N2TRUX]

Originally Posted by nxtruck

..... my experience has been that the 96-99 vortec powered Subs or Tahoes pull better AND get better mileage......

I have had the opposite experience. Having had several late model GM trucks and SUV's, my experience favors the LSx equipped vehicles IF they are geared correctly.

Gearing on the LS powered trucks is very important. A perfect example is my 05 LWB EC and my 06 SWB CC. The extra cab has 3.73 gears, and the Crewcab has 3.08. The EC even has a headache rack, lift gate, and steel plate in the bed yet it would run circles around the crewcab AND get 19mpg. My crewcab was a dog and got low 17average.

The best version I have had stock in a SUV is the 6.2 in our 07 Denali XL. That barge will out run everything I have owned that was LS powered.

[nxtruck]

That's interesting. I wish my experiences with the two body style trucks had been the same as yours. My 01' Sub has 3.73s and, when checked about a month ago, showed an average of 12.3 mpg. Dismal in my book. My 96' Sub had 3.42s and averaged 15-16 mpgs. Now, the 01' is a 4wd and the 96' was a 2wd and I know that this accounts for some of the difference, but I would have expected the newer-tech, more efficient LS-motored Sub to do better than 12.3 mpg. Oh well...

[crews]

Originally Posted by N2TRUX

I have had the opposite experience. Having had several late model GM trucks and SUV's, my experience favors the LSx equipped vehicles IF they are geared correctly.

Gearing on the LS powered trucks is very important. A perfect example is my 05 LWB EC and my 06 SWB CC. The extra cab has 3.73 gears, and the Crewcab has 3.08. The EC even has a headache rack, lift gate, and steel plate in the bed yet it would run circles around the crewcab AND get 19mpg. My crewcab was a dog and got low 17average.

The best version I have had stock in a SUV is the 6.2 in our 07 Denali XL. That barge will out run everything I have owned that was LS powered.

I have to agree with N2TRUX on this one..... I've had the TBI trucks ( both Dually and Suburbans)- Gotten decent mileage for what mods were done- moved up to a Vortec era 99 7.4L Sub- it SUCKED. LOW power and horrible gas mileage.( Less than 12) Moved on to a '01 6.0 powered Dually- that I LOVED- had GREAT power and respectable mileage ( averaged 14).... but the best of the best was the 03 Denali.... ( it got almost 19 everyday- and it RAN)

I'm sorry those 6.0 motors run REALLY well.......

[Sicklajoie]

My 5.7 in my old 98 C2500 got 14mpg
My current GMC Sierra 2500 with a 6.0 gets 12-13mpg. I love the power of the 6.0 but I don't like the throttle by wire especially on bumpy roads.