mountainmanjoe

apparently the engine block was changed aluminum, and has been totally redesigned. Might as well be a new engine.VVT is good, but AFM was a travesty and so are the 8 & 10 speed automatics.

VanKo

Last summer I got my 2013 3500 6.0l with 167k for $9,000. The van body was in almost immaculate shape. Extended cargo, no rear windows at all, Adrian partition, and mounting rails for shelving. I almost got the regular wheelbase but am so, so glad I got the extended. I moved from the South to the North and everythng I own fit in the van, packed like Tetris. I now DD it empty. I get about 13 with a 50/50 mix of highway and in-town, a few mild hills (Ohio) but no mountains. On my drive up here - all interstate - I got about 15.5. I calculate my MPG on paper between fill-ups instead of using the DIC which can be hit or miss.

That being said, while the van looks great, the company that owned it took the cheapest route on every repair. I have spent a good chunk fixing things that should have been fixed right the first time. That is the gamble buying a used vehicle however. At this point I probably could have gotten a newer, lower-milage van for all the money I've put into it. The upside is now I know that everything has gotten fixed the right way.

I'm still glad I went with the 6.0 over the smaller engine. Being fully loaded and driving through the mountains on the way up here, I had satisfactory power but definitely wouldn't have wanted any less. If you get a smaller engine and use all the power, you can't really make more. If you get a bigger engine, you don't have to use it all but it will be there if you need it.

GatorHawk24

Yep, I'd rather have power on hand and not need it, than wish I had it! These vans have the aerodynamics of a brick. In real-world driving, I'd be surprised if there's 1 mpg difference between all the gas engine options (in mixed use driving). I've seen some people say that they have gotten 18-20 mpg on the highway with the 2.8 baby-diesel, but when you factor the premium cost of diesel fuel (and the $$ increase for the diesel option), there is no added economic value. I'd recommend the 6.0L over the smaller gas engines. I'd only consider the smaller gas variants if I knew I'd never need the extra power, AND the cost to buy the van was significantly less. Just my 2 cents.

jamesm113

I've had multiple sellers tell me their 6.0L extended 2500 get 20-24mpg hwy. Any kernel of truth to that?

I think one was a 2012, the other was a 2003.

GatorHawk24

Umm, no... maybe downhill, with a tailwind... I have a 2016 extended length 3500 passenger model with the 6.0L. Here's what the US EPA estimates for MPG: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...n=sbs&id=37201

I calculate my fuel economy by the tank, so I can have an accurate representation of how the van is doing. I shared a snapshot of my calculations on another thread (https://chevroletforum.com/forum/exp...e4/#post367470), but my situation is different since I primarily use my van for towing our travel trailer (and my van is almost NEVER empty since its a road-trip family hauler when we're not towing with it). However, when we do take it on longer trips without the camper, we see around 15-17 mpg on the highway. If we keep the speed between 60-70 mph it might go up to 16-18 mpg, over 75-80 and it starts to creep down again. around town it's consistently around 11-14 mpg.

William Kisselstein

Chevy stopped making the 1500 van because the MPG counted against their ratings with the Feds.