v6 vs v8 1/2 mpg real world


40 replies to this topic
  • Trauger

Posted May 08, 2012 - 05:24 PM

#1

looking for a first truck, extended cab with 6 1/2 bed is a must. Chevy or ford is fine with me. I want to know the real world difference between the gas mileage are v6's really getting similar mpg say to 5.3, 5.4 liter v8. I mean it doesnt make sense. I was set on a ford f150 2wd v6 with a stick I was going to add a cold air intake and possibly a exhasut and hope to see 23 on the highway and like 19-20 in the city. But people are saying that a full size v8 will do just as good. Im buying used, probably ford 97-03 towing lightly just bikes, wood furniture, jet ski. I know the v6 will handel this but will I be seeing noticable mpg difference bewteen that and the 5.4 liters. I know both are also very realiable engines I just want the best mpg possible and it would make sense that it would be found in the v6, I wouldnt mind the lack of power as long as I see it makes up at the pump but if it doesnt I would prefer the better power

  • inthedirtagain

Posted May 08, 2012 - 06:42 PM

#2

Highly doubt that the V8 would get anywhere near that, and same with the V6. I've owned Ford, Toyota, and Dodge 1/2t and none of them got close to what you are wanting. Had a 3.0 V6 in the Toyota, the 5.0 V8 in the Ford, and the Dodge (current truck) has the 5.9 V8. They all got around 13-17mpg empty, and worse towing anything. Its not the weight that gets you, but the wind drag. My buddy has a new Chevy with the 6.0 and he never sees over 16mpg. Towing is single-digits for him.

  • highmarker

Posted May 08, 2012 - 06:59 PM

#3

my experience has been similar with 90's f 150's with 300six. 5.0. 5.8. They all got about the same. Same with a 4,3 and 5.7 chev I had. How you drive can be a biggie too. made the the same trip across 2 states and have got 19 one time and 14 another. !4 I was 10 over and passing and fighting traffic. 19 was just cruisin legal.

  • Baconator127

Posted May 08, 2012 - 07:03 PM

#4

If there is any way to buy new, fords new ecoboost v6 with the twin turbo has insane torque, topping that of the v8, can tow almost 12,000 pounds, and gets 23-25 highway.

  • nevada

Posted May 08, 2012 - 07:09 PM

#5

its been my experience that the v6 trucks will only get 2-3 mgp better than the v8s. that is until theyre loaded, or towing, then its the same, or even less. if its to be used for hauling, which i expect it is, considering the size requirement, you're better off getting the v8.
historically, chevy seems to get better mileage than ford.

  • 08can-am

Posted May 09, 2012 - 03:15 AM

#6

I have a Chevy v6 of a little older model and my dad has a v8 and I'm not gettin much more than him. I just think havin a v6 in a truck that's the same size as a truck with a v8 is dumb. I can feel my truck luggin it's self down over a over pass or something which is probably what is makin the bad gas mileage but I've had my truck a year and I haven't hit over 15 maybe 16 at the most in a v6

  • YamaRider287

Posted May 09, 2012 - 05:08 AM

#7

You didnt mention in your post if you was looking for 2wd or 4wd. I've owned (1) chevy 5.0, (5) chevy 5.7s , (3) chevy 5.3s and 1 ford 5.4 in trucks. All have been 4wd with lift kits/leveling kits minus 2 (one 5.3 and the 5.4 ford). All trucks were once stock however.. Best MPG saw out of any of these was the 05 crew cab short bed 2wd silverado i just sold. Got about 16.5 in town and 20 on the highway running around 65. The other two 5.3 gmc/chevys I owned got around 14-15 mpg in town(depending on my right foot) and 18 or so on the highway They both were 5.3s ext cab shortbed Z71s (1 was a 01 and and the other was an 04). I just picked up 01 F150 4x4 crew cab with the 5.4.on the cheap. I havent figured MPG on it as it sits in the garage all but maybe once a week as I have a comapny truck now but based off what a guy at work truck gets (he has the same truck, just in a 03) I probably get 12-13mpg in town with it and 15-16 on the highway. Obviously the newer models fords get better mpg but seeing as that this is your first truck, i figured you wouldnt be out buying a new eco boost f150 unless you have rich parents or a very good job. I've drove several full size trucks with v-6s (used to work at a couple different car dealerships ) and they all just feel underpowered to me. They are advertised to get a little bite MPG and they very well may, but as soon as you throw any weight on em (jet skis, trailer for dirtbikes ect ect) they struggle power wise and mpg decreases a little more rapidly then with a v8.

  • lumpy790

Posted May 09, 2012 - 06:09 AM

#8

2wd usually gets 2-3 better MPG. I had to really surch to find my 2wd Tahoe.....most are 4wd.

I personally go with a bigger motor...... makes pulling effortless verses struggling with a smaller motor.

  • woods-rider

Posted May 09, 2012 - 06:16 AM

#9

I have a 2004 5.4 4wd with 33" tires and the crew cab. I get about 15 on the highway and 12-13 in town.

  • youngztr

Posted May 09, 2012 - 06:41 AM

#10

MPG figures have a lot to do with driving habits. The faster the speed the lower the MPG. The more weight in or behind the vehicle the lower the MPG.

It’s too bad the manufactures have abandoned the manual transmission. The manuals usually get better MPG towing and are less prone to failure.

I had a 2WD 1978 F100 with a V-8 302 automatic. That truck got around 15 - 17 MPG. I had a 1989 4WD F150 with a I-6 300 5sp manual. That truck did 14 -16 MPG. The V-8 got better MPG than the 6. Both trucks had 3.55 axle ratio.

I currently have a 2WD 2001 F150 with a 4.6L automatic. It does around 15 -17 MPG. I also have a 4WD Dodge Dakota with a 3.7L V-6 6sp manual. It does around 10 - 22 MPG. Why the wide MPG range? The V-6 motor does great MPG when the truck is empty. But load it up and/or pull a trailer and the MPG goes way down. Sure wish I’d opted for the V-8 in the Dakota. Both trucks have a 3.55 axle ratio.

I hear the new Fords have the same range of MPG as my Dakota. The MPG is wonderful on the V-6 when the truck is empty. However, load it up and/or pull a trailer and the MPG is single digit.

In lament, when are the automobile manufactures going to start making trucks again? Chevy, Ford, Dodge, even the Japanese have turned trucks into cars that look like a truck. I guess we have to buy something to haul our gear and tow our bikes. We could do all that with a mini van these days and save a bunch of bucks doing it as mini vans are much less expensive than trucks and get way better MPG.

  • BlackBuzzard

Posted May 09, 2012 - 07:10 AM

#11

In lament, when are the automobile manufactures going to start making trucks again? Chevy, Ford, Dodge, even the Japanese have turned trucks into cars that look like a truck. I guess we have to buy something to haul our gear and tow our bikes. We could do all that with a mini van these days and save a bunch of bucks doing it as mini vans are much less expensive than trucks and get way better MPG.


Not sure exactly what you mean.

Truck bed dimensions for full size trucks have not changed, and come with greater or equal payload capacity and more engine power/torque than before.

Are you referring to the Fed regulations that have forced truck makers to lower the front ends, which I find ugly and untruck like?.

September 2009 all new light trucks will have either the primary front structure (typically the frame rails) or a secondary structure connected to the primary structure low enough to interact with the primary structures in cars, which for most cars is about the height of the front bumper.



You can still go out and get a one ton 4x4 PU, sans bed, and put on any of hundreds of rugged heavy duty aftermarket flat beds to suit your real truck needs.



BB

  • youngztr

Posted May 09, 2012 - 08:28 AM

#12

Not sure exactly what you mean.

Truck bed dimensions for full size trucks have not changed, and come with greater or equal payload capacity and more engine power/torque than before.

Are you referring to the Fed regulations that have forced truck makers to lower the front ends, which I find ugly and untruck like?.


September 2009 all new light trucks will have either the primary front structure (typically the frame rails) or a secondary structure connected to the primary structure low enough to interact with the primary structures in cars, which for most cars is about the height of the front bumper.



You can still go out and get a one ton 4x4 PU, sans bed, and put on any of hundreds of rugged heavy duty aftermarket flat beds to suit your real truck needs.



BB


My point, if one loads up and/or tows with the newer small and half ton trucks, within manufactures specs, the truck will not perform any where near MPG figures nor will the truck last it’s manufactures estimated life without needing major repairs to the engine, transmission, and suspension.

Manufactures horsepower and torque figures mean nothing, Absolutely nothing. They are like manufactures MPG figures. Marketing at work.

The question is, what work will the vehicle actually do in the real world and how will it survive while delivering the work in the real world. The “trucks” of the 90’s and newer are no match at delivering and surviving the work as compared to the earlier models of the 60s and 70’s.

Today’s small and half ton “trucks” are designed and built to drive on the freeway unloaded. Back and forth to the store for groceries or a pair of shoes. Who needs a truck for that?

  • Chickenhauler

Posted May 09, 2012 - 08:11 PM

#13

My point, if one loads up and/or tows with the newer small and half ton trucks, within manufactures specs, the truck will not perform any where near MPG figures nor will the truck last it’s manufactures estimated life without needing major repairs to the engine, transmission, and suspension.

Manufactures horsepower and torque figures mean nothing, Absolutely nothing. They are like manufactures MPG figures. Marketing at work.

The question is, what work will the vehicle actually do in the real world and how will it survive while delivering the work in the real world. The “trucks” of the 90’s and newer are no match at delivering and surviving the work as compared to the earlier models of the 60s and 70’s.

Today’s small and half ton “trucks” are designed and built to drive on the freeway unloaded. Back and forth to the store for groceries or a pair of shoes. Who needs a truck for that?


You obviously never had any of the half tons from the 60's and 70's.

GM's coil sprung rear axle? Yeah, that was dreamy! :banghead:

Normal life expectancy of that era? 100k/10 years.

In the meantime, regular attention was required of the carb, points, other ignition components, fuel pumps, etc.

Also, trucks of that era were mostly driven 55 mph or less. Not the common, everyday 75 mph cruising speeds we see today. 100k today means first spark plug change interval, not engine overhaul time.




As for setting up a truck for fuel economy, get a half-ton, reg cab (ext cab adds weight), V6, 5 spd with tall gears. Gonna be gutless out of the hole, but will cruise on the road with ease. Not gonna tow that well either. You can't have the best of both worlds, it's going to be a compromise of something.

Friend of mine had a Ford with that same spec, dropped the front 1" and rear 2" and was getting 18 mpg around town, 21-22 on the highway. Powertrain was all stock-IDK what gear ratio it had, but assuming it was tall gears. He was an older guy (mid 50's) and drove with a mellow demeanor.

I have a 94 Chevy 5.7L, 4L60E trans, with 3.08 gears, ext cab, topper, 2wd, and it averages 17 around town, and I've gotten 22 on road trips with it, but if I'm doing mostly freeway cruising at 75 mph I get 19-20.


Regarding "HOT" air intakes- http://www.kennebell...tAirWARNING.pdf

  • DMC707

Posted May 10, 2012 - 04:18 PM

#14

If there is any way to buy new, fords new ecoboost v6 with the twin turbo has insane torque, topping that of the v8, can tow almost 12,000 pounds, and gets 23-25 highway.


i've gotten numbers like that in isolated instances with my eco boost --- but it usually stays around 20 mpg combined. 18mpg if i am driving 80-85 on the highway, and around 22mpg if i drive 65-70.

The horsepower and seat of the pants acceleration are the real deal though

  • FLboy

Posted May 14, 2012 - 06:07 PM

#15

I have a 2001 Ford F150 with the 4.2L V6 and it gets around 16 in town and about 19 on highway. Pulling my 14' Vnose trailer drops it to 12MPG. I don't know if the V* would do better... but the V6 does the job fine. I did put a transmission cooler on it... because that always helps extend the lfe of the transmission when towing.

Posted Image

Edited by FLboy, May 14, 2012 - 06:08 PM.


  • hondacrftrx

Posted May 14, 2012 - 06:36 PM

#16

well we have an 07 tahoe, and a 11 silverado 1500, full cab short bed z71, both with the 5.3 v8. it deactivates 4 cylenders when crusing on the highway, but gets about 17 combined and 12 towing in both trucks. now, my stepdads caddy escalade with the 6.0 gets 12 mpg regardless, city or highway,

  • inthedirtagain

Posted May 16, 2012 - 12:22 PM

#17

Most of the time, I don't have a need to haul big loads in my truck, so it is primarily a daily driver just commuting to work. Not the greatest on fuel expenses, but I'm not a small guy, either. I don't fit in car very well, so I'll just leave driving the Civic up to my wife. If I wanted to buy a commuter vehicle that got decent mileage, I'd look for an older Datsun, Mazda, or Isuzu with the 4cyl diesel. This way, I could still knock down 40+mpg commuting, but also get a bike or two in the back end for day trips up in the mountains. I'll save the Dodge for pulling our new boat.

  • ben williams

Posted May 16, 2012 - 01:37 PM

#18

What a teacher told me in high scholl, and 34 years later I can't dispute it, any vehicle at a given mph takes X amount of power to make it go. It takes X amount of gas to make that much power. I bought a 98 Dodge Dakota with a 4cyl for gas mileage and on the freeway it didn't do any better than the v6 or v8. Around town and in traffic it did better, but 9 times out of ten it got 20 city 20 hwy. My 04 f150 gets 15.5 on the hwy almost every time I check it. It has a leveling kit in the front and 285-70-17's tires (bigger than stock) And I have checked so I know the speedo is 7% off and I add that to my mileage when checked. It would probably do better if I lowered it but I don't know how much. I have two friends with simular trucks one a 4.6 and the other a 6 cyl and they are all within 1-2 mpg of each other, it depends on the drive. Whith a tail wind the 6 cyl is better, in a headwind I get better. My $.02 is get the fullsize truck with the bigger v8 and then it will do whatever you want it too.

  • moto_123

Posted May 18, 2012 - 11:04 AM

#19

Agreed, MPG has more to do with vehicle shape and aerodynamics than engine displacement. There was a show on discovery I saw several years ago where someone made a teardrop shaped semi. It hauled the same volume and wight of cargo and used the exact same, unmodified engine. But the whole thing was shaped in the wind tunnel to be super efficient. They doubled the MPG. The downside? It was significantly longer and very hard to drive around in a city!

  • Chickenhauler

Posted May 18, 2012 - 06:02 PM

#20

Agreed, MPG has more to do with vehicle shape and aerodynamics than engine displacement. There was a show on discovery I saw several years ago where someone made a teardrop shaped semi. It hauled the same volume and wight of cargo and used the exact same, unmodified engine. But the whole thing was shaped in the wind tunnel to be super efficient. They doubled the MPG. The downside? It was significantly longer and very hard to drive around in a city!


A friend of mine and I have identically spec'ed semi's-same engines, same transmissions, same gear ratio's, even run the same size and brand and model of tires. We run the same loads, same routes, same customers.

I consistently get 1.5 mpg better than he does.

The difference? He's running a long hood Freightliner with no side fairings, a mid roof sleeper and no roof air deflector.

I have a KW T600 (anteater looking front end) full roof and side fairings.

1.5 mpg doesn't sound like a lot but when you're comparing 5.5 mpg to 7 mpg over a year when you're driving 120k miles....that adds up.




 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.