Drove from St. Louis to Washington DC and back- no camper/trailer.
The MPG calculator thingy put us at 16.8 MPG (was closer to 17 on the IL, IN, OH praries, and worse in the "mountains" where we used a little braking going down hill while seeing 5th and 4th gear with regularity while climbing)
I thought that was pretty impressive. (Lots of people fear getting a 3/4 ton for the "bad mileage" you get for the 95% of the time you are not towing).
With a camper- yes, the mileage sucks as it always does (8 to 10).
It was also a big learning- I have a trailer made from the back of an F-250. We get closer to 11 MPG with it- I didn't realize it was that draggy.
I drove different Suburban's for years. With a large family, pulling a small trailer, you could find no better combo out there. I would still have one, except they are not suited to pull fivers. The one with the 454 engine was great, but gas milage suffered, sometimes getting only 8 MPG in the mountains, otherwise it was OK for a heavy vehicle.
My 2011 3/4 T Suburban gets OK mileage on the highway BUT I am never on the highway without towing.
So, as was recently suggested by HLN's Clark Howard, pay more attention to the city driving mileage when purchasing a vehicle.
Dick_B
2003 SunnyBrook 27FKS
2011 3/4 T Chevrolet Suburban
Equal-i-zer Hitch
One wife, two bikes (both Electric Schwinn's with motor assist)
One of the reasons the Ford Excursion is still in high demand. They were available with a diesel motor and did offer better fuel economy. IMHO GM has really blown it by not offering the Suburban with the Duramax/Allison.
Donn,Lorri,Max (The Rescued Lab)
Resident Know It All
I have an 04 Excursion with the 6.0. It gets around 17.3 on the hiway not towing, (hand calculated) It's never done any better but it will tow our 26' jayco very well and get 11-13 depending on the road and if I keep it under 65.
I agree GM should have put the Duramax in the Suburban!
SidKaye wrote: The MPG calculator thingy's are generally highly inaccurate. Often as much as 10-20%.
Do a hand calculation fill to fill for more accuracy.
Sidney
True, but some are really close. 2-3%. Fords are pretty close, at least my 2010 was. Your right hand calc is the best.
donn0128 wrote: IMHO GM has really blown it by not offering the Suburban with the Duramax/Allison.
...yes, and I'd go even further- there's a whole number of things they should offer in terms of power plants and trannys, and maybe even rear ends, but unfortunately- it's "image" is not a work truck, but an SUV grocery hauler... (Please- not saying that as an absolute-truth-comment, the 2500 stands alone as the only 3/4 ton SUV, but the Suburban has shifted in it's fanciness- what I really miss is the vinyl seating and flooring where you can pile in the car muddy as heck and fix it later with a hose, nozzle and brush.)
My 2011 3/4 T Suburban gets OK mileage on the highway BUT I am never on the highway without towing.
So, as was recently suggested by HLN's Clark Howard, pay more attention to the city driving mileage when purchasing a vehicle.
Trouble is, more options available, the more $$ the vehicle costs because every add-on cost more to build vs. building a few similar models - an not just the add-on itself but the ability to add and subtract options probably adds to the overall cost of every vehicle built. IF we had ONE model and ONE price, would be simple... Of course, today's picky consumer would never accept that, doesn't change the cost factors in production though.
Offline
