My gutless K10 cruises at 1500RPM @ 55MPH while the Blazer cruises at 1900RPM. That impacts power, it should impact mileage as well. Though I'd still expect aerodynamics to dominate. We call them square bodies for a reason.
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.
Holy sh*t! 14mpg!
- Thread starter Cntymnty77
- Start date
My gutless K10 cruises at 1500RPM @ 55MPH while the Blazer cruises at 1900RPM. That impacts power, it should impact mileage as well. Though I'd still expect aerodynamics to dominate. We call them square bodies for a reason.
I know the visors and roof racks definitely kill mileage, I'd be curious to know about the spoilers on burbs and blazers . Kill or Help with mileage? . I know the spoilers definitely help keep the back glass clean lol
What's your source?
From what i read in the Diesel Page literature, the early 6.2 heads had pre-chamber cups with smaller ports installed.
Smaller port caused more turbulence.
Made them less powerfull but more fuel efficient.
Early had 130 hp.
Later had 165 in the J code such as m1008 and m1009 had.
Most of that improvement was the head design and messing with those pre-chamber sizes.
I believe early heads had 1 dot pre cups.
J codes had 3 dots.
Also, my m1009 weighs 5,400 lbs.
The altitude doesn't help either.
But no egr, dpf, def, or any of that junk thank God.
J-code doesn't imply a later design, it means it's a non-EGR engine intended for a medium-duty truck. In my Suburban I'm running a J-code intake from a 1982 engine that would have had the small pre-chamber ports. And I'm using it on a 1982 C-code engine that also should have the small pre-chamber ports (though I haven't pulled the heads to verify this exact engine).
Good point, though. I'm comparing a 1983 K10 to a 1986 M1009, and they should be running different pre-chamber cups.
I've seen a few G-10 vans with 6.2's,in fact there was one at the junkyard I went to recently buried alongside the woods at the edge of the property,and it was a special "Harley Davidson" edition van..
The engine in it looks unmolested other than a few external trinkets missing,I noticed it has shorter injectors and a weird CDR valve setup..much of the rear half of the van was torched off for body panels,mine will need a leaf spring and that one has 2 still on it that looked good..
The G-10's only weighed about 4500 lbs empty,and they aren't a wind plow as bad as a square body pickup,or anywhere near as heavy as a Suburban,so they might get better fuel mileage (most had 700R4 automatics too,not 3 speed ones)..but I doubt any van would get 30 mpg,not on a consistent basis--I'd believe 22 mpg or so,anything more is just about impossible in real world driving conditions..
The engine in it looks unmolested other than a few external trinkets missing,I noticed it has shorter injectors and a weird CDR valve setup..much of the rear half of the van was torched off for body panels,mine will need a leaf spring and that one has 2 still on it that looked good..
The G-10's only weighed about 4500 lbs empty,and they aren't a wind plow as bad as a square body pickup,or anywhere near as heavy as a Suburban,so they might get better fuel mileage (most had 700R4 automatics too,not 3 speed ones)..but I doubt any van would get 30 mpg,not on a consistent basis--I'd believe 22 mpg or so,anything more is just about impossible in real world driving conditions..
The factory adds in popular mechanics said 31. I had a bunch of old ones and there was a whole bunch of those adds. Given that I got 27 out of my 2wd burb a few times, and 24 consistently I believe them.
