Love the pics. And the updates. Thanks.

 

Looks like it was a nice trip. It's amazing what you can fix with zip ties & duct tape!

 

It's a 2002 SeaRay 230 w/a Chevy 377 CI or 6.2L engine. Interesting, at least to me, story on that engine. In the late 90's Chevy announced the demise of the 454, which was rated at 310 HP. But, Mercury said, you can't do that as we need an engine with that power to fit in our lineup. So Chevy offered them the 377/6.2L at 320 HP.

So, what's that? A 350 block w/a 400 crank. But, you might say, that's what the hot rodders call a 383. Yep, except they bore the 350 out .030" when they build it, and that makes it a 383. And that engine is known as a stump-puller. Sure enough, even with stock bore it is a stump-puller. All the benefits of long stroke but with the weight of a small-block.

 

Very interesting Gary, I had no idea such a beast existed. Our 18' Larson uses the somewhat related and much more common 4.3L V6.

 

Apparently I never finished this thread by posting the final results on MPG. Sorry for that.

As you can see below, the average for the trip was 11.0 MPG. And the LoM's average was 11.55 MPG, for exactly a 5% error.

 

That 5% error seems to be a recurring theme.

Thanks for the update Gary.

I should enter my data into my spreadsheet to see where my numbers fall.

 

You guy's have way to much time on your hands. When it all boils down it don't make a hill of beans difference. When I get to a quarter tank I fill up, I didn't buy a $50,000 truck so I could walk.

 

If I had filled my truck up at 1/4 tank on the trip I would have had to make several more stops. As it was, we felt the extra distance per tank that we got with 91 octane vs 87 octane was beneficial, so the thought of stopping prematurely wouldn't have been welcomed. I bought the 36 gallon tank with the intention of using it, as we did.

Anyway, this thread has been about my observations while towing my boat on vacation. And I had several, including that the 3.5L EB tows better than any engine I've been around, that it'll get reasonable MPG while doing it, but that the LoM is off by 5% on the average.

 

+1.
I'm quite comfortable running our 36 gallon tank down to 4 or 5 gallons. That should be 80-100 miles; depending. Of course, I would adjust that depending on whether I'm pulling a trailer, or negotiating mountainous terrain, or there is a long distance between gas stations. As usual, YMMV.

I still think it should be easy to factor out the 5% error.

 

+1 on that. My F150 DTE was much more accurate than the F250's DTE. Plus the F150 went further on a tank which was nice!

 

We took another "short" trip today. But as well as the pickup has been doing on gas, we thought we'd give the twin-turbo'd diesel GLK an outing. Mostly state roads at a 55 MPH limit, but it seems to like it. Here's what its "LoM" says for the day. And, while it has been pretty accurate heretofore, I'm not going to the bank with this number and will report back, just for grins, when we fill it up.

 

Wow, that's impressive!

 

Must have introduced the Diesel GLK after I left the dealership. I don't remember ever getting to work on one of those. That mileage for an SUV, even a small one, is very very nice.

 

Filled up this morn and got 42.134 MPG. That's the best ever with it, but the conditions were just right - a tail wind and lots of 55 MPH cruising with few towns.

It is a 2014 GLK, and may be the first year for the diesel. It does use urea in the exhaust, so doesn't "cheat" as some others do. But it does get very good MPG and still has lots of spunk. In fact, in 38k miles of driving it has yet to downshift to climb a hill when cruising, which makes driving feel effortless.

 

I am assuming when you use the term LoM it means the trucks mpg readout. I thought I would post that on my now sold Chevy in my Signature would get better gas hand calculated mileage than the readout. My new F150 gets much worse. The last tank the readout said 17.9 and when hand calculated it really only got 16.6.