What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

A comparison s10 vs k5 (MPG)

Robert79K5

Robert79K5

1/2 ton status
Joined
Mar 23, 2003
Posts
335
Reaction score
1
Location
Douglasville Georgia
Okay I bought a 90 k5 the other day to use as a mild wheeling/camping/spare vehicle. Well I have been driving it to work for its shakedown cruise and iv been keeping close tabs on the fuel economy and its getting an average of 18 MPG.

Now its bone stock (TBI 350, 700r4, 3.73 10 bolts) but so is my 2000 s10 that is my normal daily driver and gets 21 mpg, so lets compare.

The Blazer is running fuel injection technology that is 10 years older than my 2000 S10, the Blazer weighs a lot more than my s10, the Blazer is not aerodynamic by any stretch of the imagination especially compared to the rounded body of the s10, the Blazer is running a automatic transmission which uses more energy while the s10 has a manual transmission, the Blazer has a 5.7 liter V8 engine and the s10 has a 2.2 liter I4 engine (That means the engine in the Blazer is 2.6 times larger displacement-wise than the S10s engine)

And it only gets 3 MPG less than the S10

Not that this is a good comparison since it dosn't factor in transmission and other stuff but I figured it up and the Blazer is getting .316 MPG per Liter and the S10 is geting only .104 MPG per Liter

Comparatively the Old Blazer is Waaaaaaay more efficient than the new little s10 with all the advancements in technology.

I just thought this was an interesting comparison since a lot of people I know ask me why I like fooling with those old inefficient gas guzzlers. I love to tell them about how efficient my 79 6.2 diesel Blazer is.

Anyways Hope you find it as interesting as I did.
 
Somethings wrong with the s10 for it to get 21. My 99 Jimmy with the V6 gets 23 on average...26 on trips. That 4 banger should get 30 on the highway...

Crazy that you're getting 18 with the blazer. If I got that with a full-size, it would be my DD. It seems that 18 and higher is the DD magic number for me.
 
I have almost the same scenario with my three trucks. One is an '83 S-10 2wd with a 2.8L (carburated) and a four speed standard (no OD), that gets 28 MPG with a heavy foot. The second is a '99 S-10 Blazer 4wd with a 4.3 and a 5-speed standard, that gets about 18-21 MPG conservatively driving. Then there's the '98 K1500 with a 5.7 and 4L60E auto (K&N intake and dual exhaust) that gets about 18-20 conservatively as well.

Why is it that my newer vehicles use more fuel than the old one? All of them see regular maintenance, frequent oil changes and I check the tire pressure. Maybe it boils down to the 4wd systems absorbing so much energy, or maybe the tire sizes are larger and thus there is more rolling mass.... Still, how does an '83 S-10 with a carb. no overdrive and a 2.8L with 250,000 on the clock pull off 28 MPG???

The only thing I can attribute the huge difference to is the acetone I've been running in the older truck. It increased my mileage about 30% instantly. :thinking:
 
yeah, I've always thought that kind of strange myself...

my burb gets only 8mpg in town, but I have managed to bump that figure closer to 12mpg by using roads that have speed limits over 40mph. However, when I am on the highway I get around 19mpg @ 75mph, and I don't have to stop but every 500 miles to refuel.

My smaller car gets roughly 3-5 miles more/gallon, but the range and comfort level both drop considerably. I don't see that I save enough to justify driving my little car unless it's for a short trip around town.

Plus, 270 lb guys look funny as hell trying to get in and out of little cars.
 
dubbyx said:
Plus, 270 lb guys look funny as hell trying to get in and out of little cars.
Click to expand...

As do 6'4 200 lb guys getting in and out of S-10 pickups! :haha: It's sad to say that I've busted my dash trying to get my wallet out of my back pocket at a drive through... hurts the knees too.
 
89GMCSuburban said:
Somethings wrong with the s10 for it to get 21. My 99 Jimmy with the V6 gets 23 on average...26 on trips. That 4 banger should get 30 on the highway...

Crazy that you're getting 18 with the blazer. If I got that with a full-size, it would be my DD. It seems that 18 and higher is the DD magic number for me.
Click to expand...


Nope nothing wrong with it at all. I bought it brand new and the advertised highway MPG is 22, so 21 is right there where it should be according to GM. Its always gotten 21 or less and so has my buddies. He bought an identical s10 just a couple of weeks after I got mine. Same thing with him.

This comparison was made using the MPG that each truck got while driving back and forth to work on the same roads btw. I havnt done any city MPG tests.

Also let me reitterate that the K5 is completely stock. Stock sized tires, 10 bolts, no lift or anything. The previous owner didn't even put a sticker on the window.
 
Probably that 4 cylinder is straining to provide enough power for an unaerodynamic truck, even a compact one. That, and/or, the gearing is real low to make up for the lack of power. I would bet a v6 in the same s10 would get similiar mileage and have more power.
 
my S10 with the 4.3L V6 in 2wd averaged 19 in the city and 23 highway driving. something must be wrong with yours, since my buddy is in the 27MPG range with his 2.2L four banger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom