What’s with old trucks?

In reply to bobzilla :

I've been driving trucks for 30 years starting with a I6 1965 Chevy that really sucked the fuel. I've never gotten better than 21 out of one. Not once. My '07 Silverado 6.0 averaged 14. My '05 Colorado averaged 18. My Ridgeline is averaging about 19. My '78 C10 got 15. My '07 Seiarra gets about 16. My '11 Silverado gets about 16. Beating around town you can drop those numbers by 2-3 mpg. 

You must drive extremely easily and slowly and seldom run the A/C to be returning those numbers.

I've never seen those numbers out of any non-diesel truck. You've been very fortunate in your ownership. My current '18 f150 5.0 has averaged 18.2 on the lifetime with tanks of 24 and about 11000 miles towing a trailer. Best mileage out of a gas truck I've personally experienced.

I can get almost 24 out of my 91 ranger and it's the biggest and heaviest of that year. Higher octane used to be a good deal for it because it jumped the MPG by 3mpg.

My 97 k1500 with the 305 gets me 17-18 so far

You guys and your double digit MPG numbers... PFFT!

My Power Wagon has gotten no better than 9 MPG since I've had it. It's supposed to get in the low teens, but between its age, the full time 4WD transfer case, 4:10 gears, the 5000LB weight of the truck, and the fact that it's shaped like a giant blue brick, I'm not surprised. As I tune the EFI and do some other mods, I'm hoping to creep into the low teens, as it should be.

Vans, especially short wheel base ones, are wild prices too. 

Toyman01 + Sized and said:

In reply to bobzilla :

I've been driving trucks for 30 years starting with a I6 1965 Chevy that really sucked the fuel. I've never gotten better than 21 out of one. Not once. My '07 Silverado 6.0 averaged 14. My '05 Colorado averaged 18. My Ridgeline is averaging about 19. My '78 C10 got 15. My '07 Seiarra gets about 16. My '11 Silverado gets about 16. Beating around town you can drop those numbers by 2-3 mpg. 

You must drive extremely easily and slowly and seldom run the A/C to be returning those numbers.

I've been called a liar for a very long time over this issue. It's all about the package. Wih GM, you could build 100 different trucks out their cataogs. The GMT400's were 2wd, 4.3/5-spd and 3.08 rear ends. Not fast, but would knock down he highway mpg's all day. The 06 CC is a 2wd, 4.8/4L65 and 3.23 rear gears. It sits at 2k rpms a 80mph. 70 is about 1700. Towing 4-5k lbs it nets 14-15mpg on flat land. 13 in hills. 

City mpg in the 06 is abou 16/17. It was around 18 on the 4.3 trucks. AC runs all the time and I don't drive conservatively. It's about the package. 

In reply to chandler :

Dad's 03 5.3 truck used to get 22 on non-e gas at 75. He has 3.42's. His 1990 eclb 5.7 with 3.08's was a 19mpg cruiser. Again, I've long since given up with people believing me. 

In reply to Tony Sestito :

My 78 is about 11mpg right now. I think 15 cruising MIGHT be acheivable. 

In reply to bobzilla :

I believe those numbers.  Not the easiest to achieve, but doable.  Regarding the smaller trucks, I've known of multiple people who got high 20s out of 2.3/5 speed Rangers, and I had a boss that claimed an honest 30 MPG on his 2.2/5 speed S10.  I'd believe it, because he drove like a grandma.  Can't remember the exact number, but he also got pretty good mileage out of the Isuzu i280 that replaced it.

I think my parents usually got low-to-mid twenties on the highway in their 3.0 V6 rangers, and high teens around town.  Admittedly, my 04 F150 Heritage was the first vehicle I struggled to get the rated numbers on, but it did have a pretty steep rear gear ratio, but the same rating as the normal one.  I can't remember for sure, but that may have also been around the time it started getting harder to find normal gas, and everyone was starting to sell E10.

In reply to eastsideTim :

with E10 we are seeing 21/22 now with the 06. took about a 10 hit between fuel and vehicle age.

SkinnyG (Forum Supporter) said:

spitfirebill said:

You'll never buy that much fuel.  

I was thinking about this, and crunched some numbers. Canadian numbers, but numbers nonetheless.

A brand new Silverado optioned the way I want it about $45,000 here. I also spend $95 per week in gas in my '77 C10. At that rate, the gas I spend on my '77 would pay for a new truck in 474 tanks, or just over ten years.

Except that new truck also drinks gas, but probably only 50% better than the '77, so it would take even more years in gas savings to break even.

An online calculator showed me that instead of continuing to feed the beast I own, I go buy a new truck, it would financially break even in about 27 years.

How about "no;"  I'll feed the beast.

While I agree with your sentiment, I don't think it's so cut and dry. For most people (not GRMers...) a big weight on side of the new truck scale is having a quiet, "reliable", somewhat optioned vehicle. Also, new shiny toy syndrome.

In reply to iansane :

and there are always lighly used for half price. That changes the timeline considerably

SkinnyG (Forum Supporter) said:

spitfirebill said:

You'll never buy that much fuel.  

I was thinking about this, and crunched some numbers. Canadian numbers, but numbers nonetheless.

A brand new Silverado optioned the way I want it about $45,000 here. I also spend $95 per week in gas in my '77 C10. At that rate, the gas I spend on my '77 would pay for a new truck in 474 tanks, or just over ten years.

Except that new truck also drinks gas, but probably only 50% better than the '77, so it would take even more years in gas savings to break even.

An online calculator showed me that instead of continuing to feed the beast I own, I go buy a new truck, it would financially break even in about 27 years.

How about "no;"  I'll feed the beast.

This.

It never pencils out to try and save money by purchasing a new vehicle.

Don't forget, insurance costs will be more on the new truck as well.

In reply to bobzilla :

 I don't disbelieve you, I've just never been able to approach those numbers myself. I got 19 out of my 6.0 Silverado once. I drove the speed limit or less the entire trip and accelerated like a fat guy on a bicycle. So, it's doable, just not by me. 

In reply to Toyman01 + Sized and :

That's because it was a 6.0. Again, it's the overall Combo. A 2500 6.0 4WD with 3.73's isn't going to get the same economy as a 1500 2wd 4.8 with 3.23's. 

FWIW, we bought my wife a 1996 Ford F-150 with a 300ci 6, 5-speed and 3:73 gears when it was two years old.

A few years later we bought a 1991 F-250HD with a 460, E4OD and 4:11 gears for me.

The fuel efficiency difference was surprisingly minimal between the two. Small enough that I will never take the horsepower hit for better economy again.

It takes fuel to do a job. Just suck it up, put fuel in it and get things done. 

My Caprice has clocked 30mpg before because it has the highest rear gearing possible.

60mph is like 1200rpm

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Interesting...  While E85 isn't the easiest to get around me, I do know of a station not too far away that sells it and my minivan can run on it.  Could be an amusing experiment. 

Mini-trucks made sense when they were small, light and were fitted with low HP 4 cylinder engines.  As soon as "moar power!!!" was desired, the benefits became harder to calculate.

There is an AP for your phone that will find E85 stations. You'll be surprised at all there are.  Once you fill up with E85  drive it a bit until it's running on the E85 and then have a little fun.  It's shocking the extra power you feel.  I don't know what it's like in a mini van  it feels like an extra hundred HP in my truck. 
 Once you've got that out of your system fill it back up with the E85 and drive for mileage.  Let me know the results.