No go for the 6.0???
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
From: Northern Virginia
No go for the 6.0??? If everyone claims that the 4.0 bore engine is the more efficient engine over the ls1 5.7 3.9 bore (or whatever it is), then why do people always say "boy, that 6.0 sure does suck down the gas"?
Now, before you go riding my jock, please refrain from throwing out the "cause people always have their foot in it" analogy at me. The 5.7 gets decent mileage and the 6.0 isn't that much bigger, so, being more efficient, it should have either matched that mileage or done better.
Anyone have some 6.0 in car (not truck) city driving mileage figures to throw my way?
Now, before you go riding my jock, please refrain from throwing out the "cause people always have their foot in it" analogy at me. The 5.7 gets decent mileage and the 6.0 isn't that much bigger, so, being more efficient, it should have either matched that mileage or done better.
Anyone have some 6.0 in car (not truck) city driving mileage figures to throw my way?
If all things were identical (head flow, stroke, compression, ring material, piston material, etc), you would increase the ring/skirt contact area within the bore and add a heavier piston, mileage would suffer due to frictional losses and adding weight to the rotating assembly (provided there was no real unshrouding effect). It would probably be minor, but would be noticed. Just a theory.
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
From: Northern Virginia
Input is extremely appreciated and the theory sounds great on paper. Im my opinion, that is not theory, but fact. Is that enough for the ls1 guys to be okay and then have the 6.0 guys complain about the horrible mileage? Hmmmmm.......... 
The 6.0l has a reputation for bad mileage due to displacement because most folks aren't bright enough to consider the heavier 4L80E and 14bolt axle heavier tires etc. behind them in trucks. Once the label gas guzzler is applied no amount of reality will sway people.
The comments about ring friction and piston weight are valid but miniscule compared to the tranny/axle/tire weight added.
The comments about ring friction and piston weight are valid but miniscule compared to the tranny/axle/tire weight added.
Agreed with above.
I have 6.0 block (though mine is bored and stroked out to a 408.) and my mileage is roughly 13 mpg city and 19 mpg highway, I'm pretty happy with that considering I'm .65 liters more than the 6.0. And considering a 2004 Silverado with a 6.0 is rated at 13 city and 16 highway, I must be doing something right.
For reference a stock ls1 Camaro with automatic is rated at 15 city and 23 highway.
And I've gone from 305hp to over 500 so only losing 2 mpg in city and 4 on the highway is impressive to me.
I have 6.0 block (though mine is bored and stroked out to a 408.) and my mileage is roughly 13 mpg city and 19 mpg highway, I'm pretty happy with that considering I'm .65 liters more than the 6.0. And considering a 2004 Silverado with a 6.0 is rated at 13 city and 16 highway, I must be doing something right.
For reference a stock ls1 Camaro with automatic is rated at 15 city and 23 highway.
And I've gone from 305hp to over 500 so only losing 2 mpg in city and 4 on the highway is impressive to me.
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
From: Northern Virginia
The 6.0l has a reputation for bad mileage due to displacement because most folks aren't bright enough to consider the heavier 4L80E and 14bolt axle heavier tires etc. behind them in trucks. Once the label gas guzzler is applied no amount of reality will sway people.
The comments about ring friction and piston weight are valid but miniscule compared to the tranny/axle/tire weight added.
The comments about ring friction and piston weight are valid but miniscule compared to the tranny/axle/tire weight added.
1) Ring drag/piston weight (though miniscule)
2) 14bolt axle
3) Heavier tires
Now, to be fair, or least semi fair, I met a guy the other day that had a G8 GT that said she sucks it down. To be totally fair, I will not assume it has the same exhaust cam and intake as an LS1. I KNOW the intake is different
.Is that in a truck also?
Even if the 4L80E has less rotating mass I would bet the parts are larger diameter and the further from center mass is the more work it is to spin.
Tire design itself plays a big part too factory tires especially on "passenger vehicles" as half ton trucks are pretty much treated now are LRR. On my wife's 7th gen Impala she lost 10% fuel economy when we replaced the factory TigerPaws with a Goodyear that actually gripped something.
Betting 2500 trucks don't get as LRR a tire as a half ton.
Tire design itself plays a big part too factory tires especially on "passenger vehicles" as half ton trucks are pretty much treated now are LRR. On my wife's 7th gen Impala she lost 10% fuel economy when we replaced the factory TigerPaws with a Goodyear that actually gripped something.
Betting 2500 trucks don't get as LRR a tire as a half ton.
Trending Topics
The "more efficient" part of the equation only comes into play with head flow increase due to the larger bore, and the increase is only noticed with greater opening of the throttle. There will be little to no increase in efficiency at the cruising throttle positions. What little gains that are there will be eaten up by increased friction and the extra cubic inches.
All things being equal, the 5.7 should ge slightly better fuel economy, and the 6.0 make slightly more power.
LS2 in a corvette with 6 spd gets close to 30 mpg on the highway. It's not the 6.0 thats the problem.
All things being equal, the 5.7 should ge slightly better fuel economy, and the 6.0 make slightly more power.
LS2 in a corvette with 6 spd gets close to 30 mpg on the highway. It's not the 6.0 thats the problem.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
f everyone claims that the 4.0 bore engine is the more efficient engine over the ls1 5.7 3.9 bore (or whatever it is), then why do people always say "boy, that 6.0 sure does suck down the gas"?
The 6.0 in my silverado "sucks the gas", but that's because it's 6500 lbs, has tons of rolling resistance and it geared to pull a trailer. A 5.3, 4.8, 5.7 or 6.2 would all suck the gas in an application like this.
Even 1500 PU is heavy so to speak. It will hurt the miles per gallon.
I am in process of switching from ls1 to ls2 so I can tell you for sure what MPG difference there is but I doubt it's much more than the variance I already see (18-20mpg highway depending on fuel, conditions, etc).
The 6.0l has a reputation for bad mileage due to displacement because most folks aren't bright enough to consider the heavier 4L80E and 14bolt axle heavier tires etc. behind them in trucks. Once the label gas guzzler is applied no amount of reality will sway people.
The comments about ring friction and piston weight are valid but miniscule compared to the tranny/axle/tire weight added.
The comments about ring friction and piston weight are valid but miniscule compared to the tranny/axle/tire weight added.
Like others have said, weight is a big deal. Our cars are 3800# stock. An iron 6.0 is 110# more than the aluminum 5.7 according to the stickies above. I wish I could tell you my numbers, I am still finishing up my 408 but mpg's will never be a factor for me, I am after the power.
I have (2) 2500hd Silverados with 6.0's that pull car trailers, landscaping trailers and plow all winter. I cannot remember the mpg with the truck empty, but with adding a 900# plow on the front and 500# of weight in the bed for traction, running an 8 hour plow run, the trucks gets 9 mpg pretty much all of the time. Same if I am pulling 10k #'s.
The lighter you go the better off you will be. Motor will have less stress of moving you along.
I have (2) 2500hd Silverados with 6.0's that pull car trailers, landscaping trailers and plow all winter. I cannot remember the mpg with the truck empty, but with adding a 900# plow on the front and 500# of weight in the bed for traction, running an 8 hour plow run, the trucks gets 9 mpg pretty much all of the time. Same if I am pulling 10k #'s.
The lighter you go the better off you will be. Motor will have less stress of moving you along.
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
From: Northern Virginia
Since this is going to be my 300k plus daily driver, I didnt want to drop something in that gets 9mpg when I try to go to the beach 3 hours away and such. Just trying to determine that middle line between poser and fuel economy, for me.
Thanks for the input everyone.
Thanks for the input everyone.