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.

towing loads (gas mileage on 8.1l and also Cummins talk)

Re: towing loads

what do you mean... Seem like idiots? I think not. Most of them are idiots. LOL.

John

<font color=blue>"When all else fails, read the instructions, or get a bigger hammer"</font color=blue>
 
Re: towing loads

There not Idiots just hard time salesmen wanting to tell you what you want hear. By the way the 8.1 makes the 2001 burban a great tow rig we pulled my 72 for 3400 miles 2 weeks last summer, Moab, Salt lake then home. Got 14 miles to the gal runnning 75 to 85 thourgh some hard passes and never had a hint of problems.

72 Blazer CST 400TPI NV4500 NP203/205
01 Suburban 8100 2500 4X4
 
Re: towing loads

Ok, I have to play devil's advocate here....

You mean to tell me you get 14mpg towing your Blazer with a new big block Suburban?

I dont know anyone that gets that kind of mileage even without towing! Empty!

I personally calculated a friend's mileage when he was towing his S-10 with a 6.0l new chevy and he got only 12mpg.

You math has to be off. Regualr highway driving is only supposed to me at very most 14, if you are lucky.

If this were to be proven true somehow, I would drop the idea of a diesel and get the big block.

Ken H.

'85 K5 in process
 
Re: towing loads

I have tried to find but cant the MPG that the 01 with the 8.1 one listed at. It was not on the window sticker nor is it in any post GM site. But yes flat towing the 72 which is about 6000 with all the gear or more we got 14 MPG over 3400 miles. Its not working hard at all and get 17 to 19 around town and highway mix whem not towing.

72 Blazer CST 400TPI NV4500 NP203/205
01 Suburban 8100 2500 4X4
 
Re: towing loads

Hate to burst your bubble (all in fun though
wink.gif
), but the reason they detune the Cummins is because the rest of the drivetrain cannot handle it. Same reason the Allison will be detuned in the Suburban. A truck is a truck and should be used as such. The Dodges couldn't keep an auto behind the V-10's until they made mucho improvements (I know, same as the GM 700r), but when they dropped the Cummins in forget it. Detune or drivetrain breakage. Chevy was smart (for once) and built a truck to handle the motor, that's why it is rated at a higher GVW for towing and hauling. The motor can move it and the drivetrain can handle it, unlike the Dodge. It's like the guy who puts a 600 ft/lbs of torque motor in a stock S-10. It will smoke the ever-living snot out of the tires, but the tranny, driveshafts and axles won't last long. If I am going to buy a work truck, I am going to get a truck that will take the abuse. For those who make weekend trips to the dump with 3 bags of garbage, the Dodge is more than enough, but if you are going to haul goosenecks with the bed weighed down with stone, I'll take the GM over the Dodge, for that matter I'll take the Superduty Ford over the Dodge in that respect. I will admit, GM missed out for many years in the Heavy Duty light truck market but they are back. As for Ford (I hate to admit it but they have always been at or near the top), and for Dodge, the Powerwagon was a brute and they should have kept the design simple. Yes the newer style trucks look sweet and they are fairly powerful in the engine classes and comfy-coziness, but the drivetrains leave the most to be desired. And drivetrains my friend is what makes $$$ when it comes to a business and working hard. Thats why I used to hate GM with their weaker Diesels and crappy (read pathetically weak) IFS components. Take a look at the new IFS units. Granted they don't have 90" of articulation, but for a true work truck you don't need it (unless you take your fullsize duelly dump on trailrides), but they are light years stronger than the old units and the driveshaft should break before these do.
Again this is fact with opinion, but I know many mechanics (personal friends) and all except the ones that work for Daimler-Chrysler HATE Dodge trucks (from a heavy duty and prone to failure respect), and most of them owned the new style Dodge at one point or another because they "liked the looks". One guy bought one with the V-10 (with plow) and had 3 trannys put in by the Dealer before he got sick of it and bought a Superduty. He is very hard on equipment and does things that make you cringe, but I have to admit (as much as I like GM), that Superduty has taken ALL his ABUSE.

Remember I'm not trying to start a pissing contest, BUT I do like a good debate.



See my rig at <a target="_blank" href=http://coloradok5.com/gallery/Leadfoot>http://coloradok5.com/gallery/Leadfoot</a>
 
Re: towing loads

Gas mileage...

Sorry but there is no way I can believe that the new big block gets 19 mpg anyway besides in neutral rolling downhill. The new 5.3l in the lighter 2wd half ton trucks dont even get that much. 14mpg towing 6000+lbs...The Duramax wouldnt even get this kind of mileage! I think there is some funny math going on.

Ken H.

'85 K5 in process
 
Re: towing loads

No kidding the Cummins is detuned!!! Thats my point. It is a much more powerful motor than the Duramax. The Duramax was designed to work with the pickup parts/drivetrain. The Cummins was built to work with much more stout drivetrain.
Yes the autos suck, the Cummins will explode them. I wont comment on the Ford at all, because I have no experience.
I was a totoal complete Chevy guy. But, the Cummins has changed me. For like $1000 you can get a cummins to put out over 1000ft-lbs easy. And it would still be reliable. They were built for this. The Duramas may be able to reach those numbers, but was not designed to. There are huge differances in the motors.

And as far as drivetrain goes... you tell me the straight axle Dana 60 in the front of the Dodge and the Dana 80 in the rear are inferior to the GM axles. Come one... what crack pipe were you smoking. The transfercase will hold up fine... and auto will need a lot of work. And the manual just needs some clutch work to handle a lot.

The V-10s had a lot of problems... the auto trannies period had/have a lot of problems. But I am not talking about them.

I cant believe I am arguing FOR a Dodge. :-)

Ken H.

'85 K5 in process
 
Re: towing loads

Then go buy one and test it I did and you dont like what I posted, No funny math just fact!

72 Blazer CST 400TPI NV4500 NP203/205
01 Suburban 8100 2500 4X4
 
Re: towing loads

I am getting 16 with an '02 Sierra extended, during break-in, towing 5,000 (5.3), I get 18/19 mixed driving. Just did the first oil change to synthetic. curious to see any difference.
 
Re: towing loads

you havent strayed from the truth in any of your arguements
never believe a man telling you how much money he makes, how much his wife puts out, or the fuel economy of his truck.
the new style dodge dana 60 is a total POS. dana 44 sized axles and CAD. someone even markets a replacement made from Ford spec dana 60 parts for the Dodge. i havent looked into it but i am betting the Dana 50 in the light Superduties (dana 60 is in the heavier ones I believe) is a better axle then the 94+ Dodge spec Dana 60.
 
Re: towing loads

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

how much his wife puts out,

<hr></blockquote>

So how was the honeymoon Michael?
wink.gif


Rene

<font color=green>Dyslexics of the world...UNTIE!</font color=green>
<a target="_blank" href=http://coloradok5.com/gallery/project_T2> tRusty pics...</a>
 
Re: towing loads

man you are all over me.
she was like an animal we musta did it like ..........
thanks for caring
 
Re: towing loads

I get 13 to over 14 mpg (depending on fuel octane), towing 70-75MPH with my 93 suburban 4x4, 454/4L80E in overdrive, towing 5000lbs.

<font color=blue>azblazor</font color=blue>
<font color=orange> 79 K5 454-FI / 4L80E, NP205, D60, FF14, 4" lift, 9K Warn </font color=orange>
 
Since there are not too many Ford responses here, let me be one. I have an F350 Superduty crew cab 4x4, and it is my second in a row. The solid leaf sprung front axle and powerstroke are the main pluses in my opinion. The Dodge front ends require regular bushing replacements on the 4 links due to increasing slop as they wear (no attack meant, just my experience). With less than $1000 of upgrades, my current powerstroke is putting out 330 hp and 700+ ft lbs. It great to see the look on those ricer faces as I smoke em (literally) at the stop lights.. My mileage is around 20 highway unloaded and 16 fully loaded. JT
 
Re: towing loads

This is sort of a response to many of the posts above, I guess. I was a Chevy salesman last year, and I knew more about the new trucks coming out than the new truck manager, mostly from the net and 4x4 magazines, so not all salesmen are idiots. The Duramax IS a medium duty engine that has been on the road for a few years in grain trucks and the like, so that argument is a waste of everybody's time. The Surburban diesel IS detuned because of body clearance eith the Allison tranny. I know SEVERAL people with 200,000 miles or more on their old 6.2's and 6.5's, so there.And with the proper tuning, accessories, turbos, etc, they CAN perform very well. And whoopty damn do about the straight front axles under junk fords and junk dodges, who needs major articulation in a work and tow truck. Sorry ot sound like a know it all, but I dare anyone to dispute ANY of these facts, because that's exactly what they are. Everybody have a LOVELY day!!!

Karl
Temporarily Unemployed Underwear Model
87 3/4 ton
 
Re: towing loads

Karl, what trucks (years and models) were the 6.6 Liter Duramaxes available in (other than the new HDs)? This is the first I've heard of this.

Pete

'83 K5, 350 TBI (ex 6.2), 700R4, NP208, Dana 60/14 bolt, 4.56s, Detroits, 3" lift, 15-39.5x15 TSLs
'97 Dodge 2500 4x4 CC LB Sport, Cummins 5 spd
 
Re: towing loads

money where your mouth is.
lets see a pic of a grain truck with a Dmax.
i can get a TON of pics of 300hp Cummins B models powering small fishing boats and in lesser power med duty frieght trucks.
same with a 444 International Navistar on which the ford is based, though i am unsure if Navi used the HEIU
 
Re: towing loads

The good marine B-series are 370 horse motors.

Pete

'83 K5, 350 TBI (ex 6.2), 700R4, NP208, Dana 60/14 bolt, 4.56s, Detroits, 3" lift, 15-39.5x15 TSLs
'97 Dodge 2500 4x4 CC LB Sport, Cummins 5 spd
 
Re: towing loads

i find some of these claimed fuel economies to be a little high for towing.
c'mon 14+mpg while towing 5k or more with a bigblock at 70+mph.
last time my bro in law towed his camper to fl he got 10mpg out of his 98 454 duelly. and this at 65mph. i did the math at each fuel stop. the dodge behind us (a 98 1/2 ton 360 driven by my other brother in law) was only getting 12 while towing the boat (about 4-5K load).
i've never known any bb to get in excess of 14mpg all highway mileage with no load.
 
Re: towing loads

Well, I guess it doesn't matter what I say if you think I'm not being honest. But these are the facts. I have two trucks with the 454 TBI, and 4L80E's one's a 1993 Suburban and the other is a change over from a 1994 1ton into my blazer. They both get almost identical MPG. I'm not saying that if I'm in the mountains I'm going to get 13-14. But I just came back from Michigan this July and towed a load. I keep a log of every fillup, with gallons, date/time, cost. etc. Most stretches of 300-400 miles between fillups were in the 12-13-14 range. It does make a noticable difference what kind of gas they run. If I run supreme then I get about another MPG(into the over 13 range). Maybe I'll go back and average the entire trip and see what it is. Both trucks have overdrive transmissions and 4:10 gears. I keep my trucks maintained well. I buy major corporation gas Mobile, Chevron, Texaco. So maybe your experience is different OK, but just because my experience is not the same as yours, doesn't mean mine isn't true or valid.

<font color=blue>azblazor</font color=blue>
<font color=orange> 79 K5 454-FI / 4L80E, NP205, D60, FF14, 4" lift, 9K Warn </font color=orange><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by azblazor on 11/03/01 10:47 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Top Bottom