I see what you did there
Considering a LC:real world gas mileage?
- Thread starter Mike Rapp
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
On my Toyo AT2 285/70/17 I get 16-19 depending on how much city/hwy I do. Never dipped to 15 but I also don't slam the pedal down. Psi 44.
44 PSI? Pray tell........ Really?
Is that bouncy ?
I tried 44 psi with the 35's. It didn't last long.
I am running ko2 285 70R17 with 44psi nitrogen. First day on these tires I got 16 mpg on 20 mile commute. Generally, I get 15~ mpg in Eco mode on my old tires on same commute. Freeway with gentle gas paddle highest I got was 20ish mpg.
I run 33 psi with 35's and its smooth and stable
I have owned almost all of those in that list except the Q56 and newest body style Tahoe, I have at least test driven all of them at one time or another.
What was said about the mileage I think is true, they are all really going to be close in fuel mileage. That 2015 Tahoe would likely get the better of the lot listed I am guessing it will do closer to 18mpg, where the rest of them will get on average 15-16mpg.
The depreciation is a great point, the LCs really hold there value well. Tahoe's have taken a pretty healthy jump in price with this new generation 2015s, not sure how that is going to play out in the used market just yet.
The old Tahoe's and Escalades both tended to do pretty well in terms of resale value.
If your buying a used LC, then I am guessing that is going to be the best resale of the lot. I would agree, cost to own not counting insurance is likely in the LCs favor. Insurance varies person to person, but the LC do pickup a higher risk index score, so it will likely cost a little more to insure, I would expect the Q and the Escalade to do the same. The Tahoe and Denali will likely have the lowest insurance index scores of the lot listed, meaning it will save you on average 15-20% in annual insurance cost vs the others, probably in the $200-400 year range.
I have had 4 different 200s and driven them a total of about 50,000 miles maybe a more . But on overall average I would say 16 mpg is the number. Range from best to worst mileage I have seen in a 200 not towing anything, is 13 being the worst I have seen and 19 being the best I have seen.
What was said about the mileage I think is true, they are all really going to be close in fuel mileage. That 2015 Tahoe would likely get the better of the lot listed I am guessing it will do closer to 18mpg, where the rest of them will get on average 15-16mpg.
The depreciation is a great point, the LCs really hold there value well. Tahoe's have taken a pretty healthy jump in price with this new generation 2015s, not sure how that is going to play out in the used market just yet.
The old Tahoe's and Escalades both tended to do pretty well in terms of resale value.
If your buying a used LC, then I am guessing that is going to be the best resale of the lot. I would agree, cost to own not counting insurance is likely in the LCs favor. Insurance varies person to person, but the LC do pickup a higher risk index score, so it will likely cost a little more to insure, I would expect the Q and the Escalade to do the same. The Tahoe and Denali will likely have the lowest insurance index scores of the lot listed, meaning it will save you on average 15-20% in annual insurance cost vs the others, probably in the $200-400 year range.
I have had 4 different 200s and driven them a total of about 50,000 miles maybe a more . But on overall average I would say 16 mpg is the number. Range from best to worst mileage I have seen in a 200 not towing anything, is 13 being the worst I have seen and 19 being the best I have seen.
Not bouncy at all. I played with it from 39 to 44. 39 being the equation that's been posted before for weight. I like the ride between 42-44.
You should have at least 39 psi though. There is a good thread with how to calculate correct psi. Can't remember the title but think gjagen (sp) started it.I am running 33" Toyo AT2 (load range E) at 35l psi and am getting exactly what the sticker says I should be getting: 13 city and 18 on the highway. OK, 17 on the highway at 75-80 mph.
In case anyone is interested, I run Nitto Terra Grappler G2s in 295-70-17 on my Tundra and they weigh in at 64 lbs each. Gas mileage probably dropped by 2 mpg from the stock Platinum wheels running 275-55-20 rubber.
I have had both LX and LCs , and I not saying I ever really had any issues with the LX, but if there were any issues, I would guess it would have to be in the tech features the LX has that the LC doesn't. It's not really anything that would cause me to loose any sleep over. I think they are both very solid reliable rigs. The Tech the LX has the LC doesn't as mentioned already is the suspension is air in the LX, then there is the projector headlights, that one depends on the year of the LC, and not sure even the 13+ LCs turn with the steering like the LX. Then there is the cooled seats 13+ LCs have them as well 08-11 LCs are heated only. The second row seats are power adjustable fore and aft, manual on the LC. The 3rd row seats are partially power on the LX, 100% mechanical on the LC, the upper portion of the rear hatch is power on the LX manual on the LC. The lower portion of the rear hatch on the LX is power latching but not power closing all manual on the LC.
IMO the Mark Levinson Audio in the LX is noticeably better then the JBL audio in LCs not that the LCs audio is bad just not as good as the LX. There is a little higher grade of leather in the LX. Lighted but painted running boards on the LX, not a fan at all of the painted boards on the LX. Lots of real wood on the LX very nice, where the LC use an imitation wood.
I have Yokohama Geolanders on one of mine and oem Michelins on the other, had the OEM Michelins then Bridgestone Alenza's on my 10 LC and some sort of Pirelli's then came Alenza plus tires on my LX, all were OEM sized the LCs were 285/60/18s and the LX was 285 something 20s. All pretty much got the same mileage, overall average of 16 combined with a max of 19 and worse cases a lot of idle time in the winters, 13. All 4 200s I have had they all seemed to stay right around 16mpg. By the way love the Geolanders, order another set for my other LC today. Best ride, handling and comfort of any tire I have tried so far.
I will say that with some pickups and Jeeps where I had gone with big oversized off road tires, and ran lift kits etc, that fuel mileage always suffered substantially, generally lost about a 30% in fuel mileage. That would be about 11mpg if normal was 16 like I have seen.
Nice post cc1999
I've tried explaining this to so many... The last 2 cruisers I owned, sold for more than purchase price, virtually eliminating any fuel cost penalty.
Lots of variable w/ regards to MPG, but, my colleague averages 15.2 in his stock 08. Not bad, really.
How are you guys measuring MPG?
Are you just reading it based on the car display i.e. "mpg since fill up" or a more accurate method?
I've been taking it based on the vehicle read out which i know isn't the most accurate and doesn't take into consideration the 3.8% revolution loss due to larger tire size, but its pretty minimal.
Are you just reading it based on the car display i.e. "mpg since fill up" or a more accurate method?
I've been taking it based on the vehicle read out which i know isn't the most accurate and doesn't take into consideration the 3.8% revolution loss due to larger tire size, but its pretty minimal.
I'm getting 10.3 MPG in my 2011. 
I use science.
Based on your avatar pic I read all of your comments in a Jeff Foxworthy voice.