Improve pickup truck mileage - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-19-2008, 07:18 AM   #21
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
THe only thing I could think of is that the hood and fenders needed to be a few inches taller so when the wipers parked they were below the lip of the hood. Probably what really killed it was that the taller hood and fenders were creating a broader leading edge on the front of the truck, and that must have been worse aerodynamically than just having the wipers park on the glass, in the airstream. By my calcualtions, decreasing the height of the hood and fenders by a couple of inches lowered the surface area of the leading edge of the truck by almost 2 square feet. That body ran from model years 1973 through 1987, and was continued for about 2 years later on the suburbans and the 3500 model trucks. The redesign where the wiper cowl was removed was introduced in 1981. Probably taken off in the gas crisis of the late 70's.

-Jay
__________________

__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 05:00 PM   #22
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEEF View Post
I have also heard that the wipers that bow out that give even pressure across your windshield are more aerodynamic. I can't remember what they are called but they cost about twice as much as the conventional ones.


There's a few different manufacturers making similar wipers. My VW came stock with that type of wiper.
__________________

__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2008, 05:57 AM   #23
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 682
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
The 5.3 is the right choice for two reasons:

1. It's very efficient, relative to the 4.8 and the V6. It varies by year and model, but usually it's rated the same or better.

2. The most important part about making a more efficient model is that people have to buy and drive it. People want the 5.3.
I, for one, don't want a V8 in my next truck. I've always been interested in range and fuel economy, most particularly when I go off road in northern Maine. Full size off-road vehicles are a joke. The Chevy Z71 pkg sucks fuel so badly that I would never buy it as my hunting vehicle. I'd have to drive out every 3 days to gas up.

As for V6's, it's still a mystery to me why GM still uses the antediluvian 4.3 liter V6 engine as the base truck engine, when its 3.9 V6 with Displacement on Demand and variable cam timing is sitting in the parts bin. This engine, coupled to the new 6 speed automatic and 3.23 axles would give good fuel economy in a decent 4x4. Where is my 25 mpg truck?

I am willing to pay V8 prices for a V6 with economy. I'm even willing to pay diesel prices for a gas V6 with economy. WAKE UP, GM, FORD, DODGE!
__________________
Capitalism: The cream rises. Socialism: The scum rises.
Sludgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 10:59 AM   #24
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 28
Country: United States
Location: Briggsdale, CO
My step had a 1500 Chevy 350 diesel back around 1980. Just after that they had a bunch of small 4 cyl diesel options in the mini trucks. I almost bought a 1980-something Chevy Luv 4x4 diesel a couple years ago. I kept thinking how hard it would be to get parts for the engine.

I'd like to see the small and mid size trucks get small 4 cyl diesels. And see the full size 1/2 tons get small V-6 or small V-8 diesels in the 200-250hp and 350-400lb/ft range. Even a large displacement (4.0L or higher) inline or V-6 diesel in a half ton would do it for me.
__________________
99metro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 11:52 AM   #25
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_BEEF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,831
99,

it's coming. check my post #12 and you will see two links. I don't know about the smaller trucks and the 4-cyl diesel but it is a good idea.

they have been talking about smaller diesels in the half ton for a while so I can't say for sure if we will see them when they say we will but it is a start
__________________
Be the change you wish to see in the world
--Mahatma Gandhi



GasSavers_BEEF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 01:19 PM   #26
Registered Member
 
Greyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 77
Country: United States
I was told at our training that Dodge has a diesel in the works for a half ton truck. The target fuel economy at the time was 25mpg hwy
__________________

__________________

Greyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How can I remove EPA type for my vehicle? airbus Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 08-26-2011 03:00 AM
Partial fuel-up - when do you reset your trip odometer? johnclayton Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 07-30-2009 10:16 PM
drivetrain resistance bagpipe goatee General Fuel Topics 9 09-14-2008 10:04 PM
2001 Tahoe w/5.3L V-8 LexAtlanta General Fuel Topics 12 05-13-2008 01:50 PM
HyCO 2A samandw Experiments, Modifications and DIY 0 03-03-2008 09:09 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.