Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options

Gas Mileage

1567810

Comments

  • mikea2mikea2 Member Posts: 4
    Could anyone tell us what gas mileage they are
    getting with the Ram 2500 5.9L magnum
    pulling a 6000 - 8000Lb trailer. Also how has
    this engine performed in the mountains?
  • j2smellj2smell Member Posts: 13
    I have a 2000 GMC yukon XL 4 x 4 with 4.10 rear and am getting around 12.5 to 13 mpg combined cith and highway. Disappointed as my 96 3/4 ton 454 was 12. Not sure if we have a problem or not. Others are posting much higher figures.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Member Posts: 358
    I think your mileage will improve quite a bit as it breaks in. Do you have the 6.0L? That engine definitely is a guzzler compared to the 5.3L, but still your mileage should go up to 14's after about 5000-7000 miles. Also, keep in mind, the winter gas is oxygenated in a lot of portions of the country, and it's less energy dense. Certain brands are better than others in this regard. Try changing brands just for kicks (I find Texaco has the best gas in this region (northern NM). I always get 0.5-1.0 mpg better with Texaco gas).
    Regarding the others that are posting higher figures, make sure they're not at high altitude. As several of us have noted, the new computer-controlled trucks get significantly better mileage at high altitude because it just backs off the fuel sent to the engine to compensate for the lower pressure air. As someone mentioned above, it effectively lowers the size of your engine. Power suffers, but mileage is great! My '98 GMC gets 21's with the 5.7L engine and 3.73 axles (I'm at 5600 ft.).
    -powerisfun
  • j2smellj2smell Member Posts: 13
    I have the 5.3 as that is the only engine available for the 1/2 ton. Live in Texas and don't have winterized fuel as far as I know. It is low altitude, 50ft. above sea level. But from what I can tell the new engines aren't more economical and aren't noticable more powerful except for my 94 Burb (190 hp). Kind of wish I had my old 454.
  • y2kgmcy2kgmc Member Posts: 23
    the dealer located my truck at another dealer as i was looking for the bucket seats and limited slip rear axle ,so i settled for the 4.8 ,but knowing now that the 5.3 gets better mileage than the 4.8 ,I would have insisted on the bigger motor. At the time(nov 99) there were not many Indigo blue ext cab 4x4 's with positraction around here.
  • andy_jordanandy_jordan Member Posts: 764
    Sorry about this being off topic, it just seemed like a good place to put it where it would reach its widest audience.

    It occurred to me that a lot of people here have new trucks, and the weather in many parts is now not so great. Therefore I just wanted to remind people that most new trucks come with the tire pressures set for heavy hauling. If you are carrying a light or no load you might want to lower the pressures in accordance with the manual to the low load setting. This usually makes quite a difference in rear air pressure especially, which will serve to give better traction in slippery conditions.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Member Posts: 358
    Since you have the 5.3L, I don't know what the problem could be. 12 mpg seems low for that engine. Is the new Yukon XL substantually heavier than the pickups? Still, I'd give it a few more miles and it should improve at least somewhat.
    -powerisfun
  • mikea2mikea2 Member Posts: 4
    Thanks for the information on towing, from your post you must have a GMC with the 5.3 L 3.73
    gear. As a first time truck buyer, reading all of these Post's makes my decision on what truck to purchase very confusing. I currently pull a 25 ft travel trailer here in Florida with a Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 5.2 L V8 and get 8 mpg. Hoping to extend my travels out West, selection of the tow vehicle is quite important.
  • jsgernijsgerni Member Posts: 3
    I have a 1998 dodge ram quad cab with 5.2 engine auto trans. 2 wheel drive I have been only getting 10-12 miles to the gallon highway or city
  • jsgernijsgerni Member Posts: 3
    I have a 1998 dodge ram quad cab with 5.2 engine auto trans. 2 wheel drive I have been only getting 10-12 miles to the gallon highway or city
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Member Posts: 358
    Dodges do get the worst gas mileage of the big 3, but yours does seem a bit low for the 5.2L and not a 4x4. You probably know all this, but I just thought I'd run through the usual culprits:

    Are you heavy on the gas pedal?
    Are your tires up to at least 35 psi?
    Is your air filter dirty?
    Have you tried different brands of gas?
    (I was surprised how much better mpg I get with
    Texaco gas over Conoco and Philips 66)
    Have you tried different octanes?
    (your computer may be backing off the ignition
    timing to compensate for low octane. That
    will kill your mileage)
    Are your spark plugs fouled?
    (just take one out and see if it's all black
    if so, take it in and have it looked at)

    That's about all I can think of. If you've checked all these already, I'd have it looked at.
    Good luck.
    -powerisfun
  • jsgernijsgerni Member Posts: 3
    I had the dealer go through the truck which has 14,000 miles on it and he found nothing wrong I will try the higher octane gas and see if that helps. Thanks for the response
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Member Posts: 358
    Did the dealer check your steering alignment? That's also a common fuel robber. Good luck. I hope you're able to get it where you want it.
    -powerisfun
  • number1number1 Member Posts: 71
    I am picking up my 2000 Silverado tomorrow. In looking at a cap, the salesman told me that it improves gas mileage since you eliminate the parachute effect of the tailgate. He said expect a 1-1.5MPG improvement. The cap will be cab high and weigh about 165lbs
  • jerobbinsjerobbins Member Posts: 48
    I put a tonneau cover on my 2000 Silverado Z71 XB SB and it didn't appreciably change the gas mileage. You might have better luck with a cap, since it comes to the same level as the cab, but I doubt it.

    However, the tonneau was well worth it to protect my cargo from rain and snow.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Member Posts: 358
    I would think you'd notice a little improvement on highway mileage if you get a cap that is contoured in the back. A lot of people don't realize that a big flat perpendicular surface on the back is almost as bad as a big flat perpendicular surface on the front due to the vacuum created when moving.
    Your city mileage may actually decrease due to the 165 added lbs when accelerating. I have a hard tonneau and I can't really tell if it helped the mileage or not. I installed it within a few weeks of getting the truck. The mileage improved at the time, but it was probably due to break in.
    My overall mileage is very good though. My '98 GMC ex-cab, Z71 with 5.7L engine gets 20+ mpg on the highway. I'm very happy with that.

    -powerisfun
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    Another thing that I remember reading that was contrary to what people use to believe was that, assuming you don't have a cap, replacing the tailgate with a cargo net doesn't improve mpg and may actually decrease it. It would seem like the net would eliminate drag by letting air flow through it, but apparantly that is not the case.
  • andy_jordanandy_jordan Member Posts: 764
    quite some time ago.

    It can be found here:

    http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~ehaffner/did.htm
  • rshornsbyrshornsby Member Posts: 200
    post. It was both informative and intresting. I can see why some things just don't work very well. It is a good site.

    Roger
  • nuwonuwo Member Posts: 63
    A couple earlier posts noted that mpg increased with elevation, perking my curiosity. Since I live at 7,000 ft, I've been getting pretty good gas mileage with my 99 Silverado (vital statistics are in an earlier post). I just returned from a road trip to Riverside, CA. For kicks, I tracked mpg from Kingman, AZ to Riverside and back, which is pretty much low elevation. Driving about 72-77 mph on I-40, I-15, and I-215, I averaged about 18.3 mpg. I tend to get a tad bit better at elevation, but I'm still not complaining!
  • paynerpayner Member Posts: 31
    I ordered a Chevy 1500 4X4 Ext Cab with the 4th
    door I have until Fri. to change my order and I am
    trying to decide if it is worth getting the 5.3L
    motor or should I stay with the 4.8L?
    I have heard that the 5.3 is getting better
    mileage, has anyone found that to be true?
    Oh and how are the factory tonneau covers?
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Member Posts: 358
    From what I've seen the 4.8L and the 5.3L are reporting about the same mileage. The 4.8L may have only 15 fewer horsepower, but it has about 35 fewer lb-ft of torque, which you'll really feel at lower rpm (i.e. normal driving). To me the only downside of getting the 5.3L is the initial cost, but you'll get some of that back at resale, plus you'll have acceleration that will make you smile at every stoplight. Go with the 5.3L.
    -powerisfun
  • rodandyrodandy Member Posts: 7
    Well, it took me two evenings but I finally got through all 503 posts. I'm currently driving a '97 Chevy S10 2wd with 4.3 and 5 speed manual. I drive just over 100 miles per day on the Garden State Parkway and have averaged about 21 mpg for the 5 months I have lived in NJ. I keep hoping if I feed it well it will grow up into a new Silverado, but so far no luck.

    My interest in this topic came about because we have had a couple of weeks of really nasty weather and it renewed my interest in 4wd. I stopped at the local Dodge dealer and asked about the new Dakota Quad Cab 4x4 and was told by the salesman that is driving one he has only averaged about 10 mpg! He lives only 5 miles from the shop, and warms up the truck in the morning which probably murders his mileage, but if it won't do better than 10-12 I couldn't afford to feed it. His had the new 4.7l V8 with auto, no idea which rear end gears. I know that the 4wd will cost me some extra money both in fuel mileage and maintenance, but if you wanna play you gotta pay.
    I used to want a 4x4 when I lived in Colorado 18 years ago, but living in San Diego for the last 12 I never could justify it. Now it seems like it makes some sense.

    After reading the mileage posts on the new Chevy/GMC it seems reasonable that I could buy a Chevy Silverado 4x4 with either the 4.8 or 5.3 and get equal or better mileage than the smaller Dakota. I haven't driven the Dakota yet, but I did get to rent a brand new 2000 Silverado 4x4 Z71 with 5.3 in Cleveland a few weeks ago for 4 fun filled days and about 400 miles. The truck had 4.5 miles on it when I picked it up. The only things I can find fault with are that the 5.3 is only available with an automatic which I detest, and that the latch for the seat belt was under the arm rest and I had to flip up the arm rest in order to buckle it every time I got in the truck.

    Oh, by the way, in the Silverado I got 15.7 mpg making trips between Cleveland, Akron and Dover and some round town in Dover. Broken in and with a 4.8 and manual transmission I would expect better.

    I'm not knocking the Dakota but the Silverado seems like quite a lot more truck for about $3000 difference in price. And that's with an 8 ft box instead of the 5 ft 4 in box on the Dakota.
  • jerobbinsjerobbins Member Posts: 48
    I have a 2000 Silverado LT Z71 ext. cab with a short bed. It is a automatic with the 5.3L engine, 4x4, and a locking rear. I started off getting about 16 mpg, after 4500 miles I'm getting about 17. The LT 4x4 comes with the Autotrac transfer case, which has an "auto 4x4" position. I believe that option engages the hubs but doesn't actually transfer power to the front wheels unless the back wheels start slipping. Driving in the auto mode on packed snow, along with pre-warming the truck about 10 minutes before driving lowered my mileage to 15-16 mpg. I drive mixed city/highway.

    For more information on the Dakota Quad cab mileage, check out the Quad cab topics like 746 and 772. I believe they contain mileage figures from new owners of the Quad cab.

    I thought about getting a Quad cab, but decided I wanted the larger bed. I bought a bed extender, so with the tailgate down I can put landscape timbers, plywood, etc totally in the bed. I live in the country and will be building a deck, a chicken coop, and a small barn in the next few years. I got the 4x4 so I could drive in the woods on the back of my lot - it was very handy for collecting firewood this year.

    If you're not going to haul much then the Quad cab might make sense. I believe it does have more room than the extended cab Silverado. I have taken a weekend trip (about 6 hours round trip) with two people in the back seat and they said it was pretty comfortable. The truck was also fantastic to drive in the 14+" of snow we got last week. As long as I was smart (4x4 won't help if you drive like an idiot!) there wasn't anywhere I couldn't go. The power, weight, and ground clearance were awesome! However, I've never driven a 4x4 Dakota in the snow so it might handle just as well.

    One other thing to consider between the Dakota and the Silverado 4x4 - both offer a full-time four wheel drive, but the Dakota with the full-time 4x4 (NV242 transmission) doesn't offer a two-wheel drive position. It has Neutral, 4-Lo, 4-Hi, and 4-Full (~50% power each axle). The Silverado with the Autotrac has the same options plus a 2-Hi position. The two-wheel drive will give you better gas mileage and save some wear-and-tear on the hubs and tires. Plus, the Silverado's 4-Full runs in two-wheel drive unless it detects slippage. This not only saves some gas, but it improves handling. Your cornering will suffer in four wheel drive; I've seen the difference in my Silverado btw 4-Hi and 4-Full.

    Make your own choice and be happy with it - you're not likely to get everything you want but as long as you research well and make the best choice with your knowledge you should be happy.

    Good luck!
  • 5pots5pots Member Posts: 9
    Ive just arrived back from the Phoenix National cattlemens annual convention, met a guy who averages 150,000 miles a year (500 MILES A DAY) HE sells and delivers gooseneck cattle trailers (which weigh 4500 pound on average empty).

    He said the V10 is more economical than his previous 460s in the F350, and he runs a 3.7 rear end averaging 12 to 14 miles to the gallon. He said diesals to expensive to maintain, and no real fuel cost advantage, he trades for a new pick up every year. Just thought id pass along the info
  • andy_jordanandy_jordan Member Posts: 764
    As jerobbins said the various Dakota topics have some figures, but here is my experience. I have a club cab, rather than a quad and have a standard rather than auto, but otherwise similar - 4.7 V8, 4x4, 3.92 rear end. Now that the truck is run in I am averaging around 16 - 18 mpg, depending on the balance of city / highway. Judging by other Dajota mileage related posts, that doesn't seem to be too out of whack from normal.
  • concernedf150concernedf150 Member Posts: 1
    I bought a new 1999 F150 in October of 1999 and it now has 7,900 miles on it. It has a 4.2 V6 engine and 3.55 rearend with a 5 speed manual. I cannot get better than 15 MPG in any driving condition. I have taken it to the dealership and their response was that there was nothing wrong with the vehicle. During their tests it got 15.6 in the city and between 20-25 MPG on the hyway. Please, if you are having the same problem respond to this message so I can have documentation to take to Ford.
  • jtedjted Member Posts: 17
    Does any one out here own a 200- Toyota Tundra. And what kind of gas mileage are you getting with the 4.7 V-8. I am only getting 11 to 13 MPG.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Member Posts: 358
    I don't own a Tundra, but how many miles do you have on yours? If it's less than about 7000 miles, it may improve drastically with break in. Also read up a few posts I gave someone with a Dodge that was getting horrible mileage a list of things to look at to make sure it wasn't something simple (like tire pressure). I recopied that list in the topic right before this one called "'97 Silverado Complaints" (or something like that).
    -powerisfun
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    jted, you may have a problem, unless the engine just doesn't do as good as the V-8. Trailer Life Mag tested a Tundra 4x4 access cab with V-8 and 3.9 axle ratio in the February 2000 issue and it got 19 hwy 15 city. They are pretty honest about mpg and they usually get less than what people post on this site.

    The towing mpg was not good. With a 6,300+ pound trailer in tow, they only go 6.9mpg. Despite the towing mpg negative, they really liked the truck. If you want to get pumped up about the Tundra, you should peruse the article next time you are near a book store. They liked everything about it and said that it will give the Big Three a run for their money.
  • mrhaney1mrhaney1 Member Posts: 7
    Hey, I have found out over the years if you are not getting very good mileage the best way to improve it is to lie about it.
  • rshornsbyrshornsby Member Posts: 200
    How right you are....

    Roger
  • stevekstevek Member Posts: 362
    I am getting 26 mpg with my '97 K1500 Z71 with a 5.7L engine while towing a 6000# trailer and flooring it at every green light. On the highway I never drop bellow 85 mph (except when going thru a toll boot).

    Stephen
  • mikea2mikea2 Member Posts: 4
    I want one of those trucks.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    Once, I got close to 30mpg with my 99 F-350 Superduty Supercab dually V-10 4.30 axle ratio and I was carrying my 10'11" Bigfoot 3000 (total GVWR of truck and camper is just under 12,000 pounds). I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with the fact that I filled up at the Texaco at the top of an extended descent at basically coasted into town (Homer, Alaska). It was amazing how quickly the mpg dropped when I hit level ground.....

    Personally, the way to resolve the mpg blues in my truck is to click the trip computer over to kilometers per liter. It's a much more pleasant number.
  • scaperscaper Member Posts: 9
    I am about to purchase a 450 SD with the non-turbo 7.3 with a ZF 5 spd transmission. I'm not sure which axle is in this combination but I know it's low maybe a 410 or 430 ratio. The truck has 158000 miles on it and is in very nice shape, the owners use was limited to hauling hay with a 26 foot goose neck trailer. All he could say was that the new F450SD doesn't get as many trips fully loaded as the older truck. So this is my question what type of mileage can I expect. I have no idea if the older non turbo models got better fuel economy then the newer models. If you own an older truck please let me know how it has done with mileage,maint, and other related topics. Thanks in advance Scaper.
  • rodandyrodandy Member Posts: 7
    jerobbins and andy_jordan thanks for the info. I was out and about today with my "designated back seat testers" looking at some pickups. My son is 16, 6'3" and about 205. We stopped at the Dodge store first. The salesman showed us a Ram Quad Cab first. Great looking truck in the bright blue color, but just not enough room. When I adjusted the drivers seat to be comfortable for me there were some knees poking me in the back. The salesman said there wasn't any point in looking at the Dakota if the Ram wasn't big enough. The Silverado was better, but still not enough. The only thing we looked at all day that would really be comfortable for full size adults in the back seat was a F-250 Super Duty Crew Cab. I don't want/need the 3/4 ton, so I'm waiting for the new F-150 Crew Cab and the new Chevy Avalanche which are both supposed to be out as early 2001 models in the next couple of months. I'll miss the longer bed of the Silverado, but I need the passenger room more often than the extra cargo capacity.
  • jerobbinsjerobbins Member Posts: 48
    I haven't heard that the Chevy Avalanche or GMC Terradyne are supposed to be out this year. If you go to the Avalance page off the GM web site they mention that the final model "might differ" from the prototype - it doesn't sound like the production model has been finalized. They also don't mention a delivery date, even though Nissan, Dodge, and Ford trumpeted about their light-duty crew cabs months before they were released.

    I have heard that the Ford F150 Crew Cab and the Explorer Sport-trak will be available this spring. The F150 is supposed to have a production run of at least 100,000, so there should be a bunch of them available.

    By the way, one advantage that the Avalanche has over the F150 - the wall between the bed and cab will fold down enabling you to carry an 8' load behind the front seats. However, I believe you have to remove the rear glass to do this, so it's not something you'd want to do when the weather is cold!
  • tucsonjwttucsonjwt Member Posts: 265
    Just a few thoughts on this gas mileage topic.
    1)The drivers posting here may not all be using the same method to calculate gas mileage, so we really don't have a scientific comparison here. I'm not saying that anyone is lying, just that we are probably not all using the exact same method to calculate gas mileage.
    2)Highway mileage at constant speed will yield better gas mileage than stop and go city driving.
    When a poster states mileage in this forum as a percentage or uses words like "mostly city", we know that we have a big unknown variable there.
    3)A 6 cylinder should get better mileage than an 8 cylinder, but if the driver of the 8 cylinder is driving more "economically" than the 6 cylinder driver, then the 6 cylinder will have worse gas mileage.
    4)I suspect that truck salesmen have a tendency to overstate the anecdotal reports of good gas mileage on V8s - they get more money for the V8s, the factories allocate mostly V8s, they need to push V8s.
    5)V8s are better for heavy load carrying and heavy towing, but aren't necessary for a commuter vehicle.
    6)Full size pickups and SUVs should not be bought for good gas mileage because we are talking about a range of 12-17 mpg. for most of these vehicles. As a previous poster calculated, the dollar cost is still not that much different even with current gas prices. (Getting 5 more mpg(17-12) If you drive 10,000 miles per year is a savings of 245 gallons of gas per year. 245 X $1.30 per gallon for gas is a savings of about $319 per year.)
    13)I have a 2000 base Silverado 2DR 2WD regular cab longbed pickup with V6 4.3L automatic. I got 15.3 on the first fill up, 15.6 on the second fill up - all city driving.
    Just my $.02.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    When it comes to full size trucks, the six cylinders don't necessarily get better mpg than the small V-8s in the same truck under the same driving conditions. Some do, some don't. The more options, the more weight. Eventually a vehicle becomes heavy enough that the smaller engine is working so much harder to move the weight that the extra effort robs it of it's mpg advantage.

    As an example, you're not going to find any four cylinder engines in full size trucks. It's not because they can't push the weight. It's just that they can't do it efficiently. You won't have an mpg advantage, you won't have the power, and the engine life will be less because the engine is working harder.

    Are there some full size pickup combos that will get better mpg with the six cylinders? I'm sure there are, but most of the V-6 owners that post in discussion areas like this appear to be disappointed that the mpg advantage over the V-8 is not significant, if at all. They end up with less power and little savings at the gas pump. Silverado owners with the 5.3L seem to be posting some pretty good figures in the mpg range you mention.

    As an FYI, I ran some figures a while back to check out the savings of 2mpg with the assumption that you would average 15,000 miles per year. The savings was about $3-$5 per week depending on the price of gas.
  • dropperdropper Member Posts: 47
    My mileage, for what its worth, mostly city (70%), my first tank came in at 15.242 MPG. Vitals: '00 Silverado, 3:73, locking rear, 2WD, 3DR, SB.
  • dropperdropper Member Posts: 47
    Oh yeah, it is the 5.3L LT. So air and all the other features. No tonneau cover and the tail gate firmly in place. I wonder if the weight of a hard tonneau cover outweighs its aerodynamic properties?
  • tucsonjwttucsonjwt Member Posts: 265
    My point is that the V6 has plenty of power for most Silverado users, and you really don't need a V8 for daily commutes. I bought it from a local Chevy dealer's commercial lot, where they sell only to commercial customers (contractors,etc.) and ALL of their pickups are V6s. The salesman told me that business people wanted the basic truck to do the job, including hauling loads, towing, etc., and didn't want to pay anything more than necessary. If they weren't getting the job done, they would not be selling only V6s. I have owned two V8 Chevy pickups for the past 20 years. The new V6 Silverado I have has more pep from a dead stop than either my old 350 or 454. Just my perception maybe, but that's what this forum is about. I kept the old 454 for hauling heavy loads and dirty work.
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    Thanks for the common-sense talk about V6-vs-V8 gas mileage. You say in #522 that you got about 15-16MPG in city driving. Have you had a chance to get your V6 Silverado out on the highway? What kind of mileage?

    I've got an old V6 4x4 LWB Ranger that I'm looking to trade in this spring, either towards a new Ranger or possibly an F150 or Silverado. I'm intrigued by the V6 F150/Silverados since they certainly don't seem to get much worse mileage than the V6 small trucks. I only need modest towing/carrying capablities (a 2500lb boat/trailer). Any advice would be appreciated.

    I tend to buy and hold my vehicles, and gas prices could certainly increase in the next few years. So I'm not considering a V8 in my next purchase.

    Regards,

    Dan
  • tucsonjwttucsonjwt Member Posts: 265
    I have taken the V6 Silverado out on the highway only twice. Once during the test drive and once to check for the reported vibrations at high speeds mentioned in the Silverado posts(didn't detect any vibration.) Both times it was only for a couple of miles.
    I think I will conduct a test this week with a full tank of gas, before and after a run down I-10. I'll let you know what the result is. BTW,in the city driving I refer to, I only drive a few blocks at most before stopping for a traffic light, stop sign, etc., so this is a very conservative gas mileage estimate for city. My driving is not normal, as I live near the university in Tucson, and never drive the truck more than 15-20 blocks before stopping to shop,etc.
    I recommend to you and others interested in a new Silverado that you test drive a V6 and the two new V8s on the roads that you will actually drive every day before you buy any truck. I think you will find that the V8s don't have any noticeable difference in town, unless you are a very aggressive driver, and they have plenty of acceleration for the highway. You can get a nice Silverado with A/C, cruise, auto, for around $15,000 + with the discounts available now. (Take the difference betwen that price and the $30,000 typical pickup purchase and invest it in an asset that will appreciate, not depreciate.) If you want the basic model, check out the GMC Sierra twin to the Silverado. It has a fold down armrest for the center seat and the Silverado does not, so I had to buy a seat top armrest for my Silverado. Maybe Chevy will wise up and put the armrest in for the 2001 model. I think they want you to upgrade to the LS in order to get an armrest. Still, the basic cloth seat Silverado is a very comfortable, nice riding truck.
    I'm no expert on towing, but the V6 I bought came with a 3.42 rear end, which is what the local Chevy dealer buys for all commercial pickups. It seems to be quite peppy with the V6, but the dealer can recommend an appropriate rear end for your towing needs. If you don't tow heavy loads or tow often and in hilly terrain, I think I would stay away from a big rear end to economize on gas. With the new "tow haul" mode on the automatic transmission, I think a V6 could handle the loads you are considering.

    Just my $.02 again. Stay tuned.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    I know a guy with a new regular cab Silverado v6, he gets about 18.

    I have another friend with an ex-cab silverado with the 5.3. He's getting 17 and its not broken in yet.
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    Thanks for the quick response! I'll check back over the next few days to see the results of your highway test.

    I use my truck in a small town that is REALLY stop-and-go, I doubt I go five blocks without hitting a stop sign. In these conditions, I get about 15MPG in my old V6 4x4 Ranger, and I get 19-20MPG in real interstate driving. New V6 4x4 Rangers are rated about 18 city/21 highway, I would certainly consider a 4x2 V6 Silverado if it got mileage in this range. The 4x4 is fun but not really necessary for my driving. The cost is about the same--carsdirect.com lists XL 4x4 Rangers for about $16K.

    Thanks again,

    Dan
  • nuwonuwo Member Posts: 63
    For one advocating reality in mileage estimates (post 522), your test is the most biased and ridiculous one I've seen to date. Walk the talk!
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    33 miles isn't going to be a good mpg indicator. You need to burn close to a full tank. Better yet, burn a couple tanks and average them together. Maybe plan a 3-4 hour trip up the hwy and back. That would probably get you around 500 miles.

    A short trip of the duration you mention could be easily impacted by terrain, wind, etc. You mention going up to a peak. If most of the return trip is downhill, the numbers will be way off. It's not an equal trade-off when a truck running empty climbs a hill and then descends the same hill.
  • tucsonjwttucsonjwt Member Posts: 265
    Read the second paragraph in my post right above your post: "I don't think that this is a realistic number."
    And Brutus: It's 26.93 mpg, not 33mpg.
    Here is the point once again. It is "possible" to come up with some real gas mileage wonders, depending on how you check mileage. But it also possible that a V6 can get very good gas mileage, although I don't think that you will ever be convinced of it.
    I just recounted what I actually did and the actual result to illustrate the difference between city and highway mileage.
    It looks like a touched some nerve so I will stay off this topic.
This discussion has been closed.