i get about 180 out of about 16 gallons ... but that is with no highway driving whatsoever

 

i beg to defer on that!

my '92 Jimmy was gettng just over 22mpg when i bought it in '96 (173K km/107.5K miles) and by the end it was down to just under 19mpg-and i worked that truck hard.........way harder than i do my '98. so how can the 2nd gen's be better than the 1st gen's?[/QUOTE]

Don't forget, I have a 4.3 V6 4x4. Comparing that to the 2.8...well I would sure as hell HOPE yours gets better mileage. haha. And don't all the 2nd gens have the 4.3? That would make the 1st gens with the smaller motor look much better compared to the 2nd gens. Gotta compare apples to apples here.

 

Don't forget, 1)I have a 4.3 V6 4x4. 2)Comparing that to the 2.8...well I would sure as hell HOPE yours gets better mileage. haha. 3)And don't all the 2nd gens have the 4.3? That would make the 1st gens with the smaller motor look much better compared to the 2nd gens. 4)Gotta compare apples to apples here.[/quote]

since you're new around here, i'll be nice & try not to tear you too big of a new one

1) good to know

2) why are you comparing it to a 2.8?.............was that in reference to my truck? 'cause the 2.8 was never offered in the 4 doors. don't know why you'd think that, but judging from the rest of your statement/comments, you really don't know these trucks that well.

3) again, see the latter part of my previous comment (#2).

4) i see further proof that you don't know what an apple looks like.

don't take it personally, but if you hadn't of placed that last bit in there, i would've just corrected your "misinformation".

 

Forgive me, I didn't see that yours was a 4.3 also. It's not often I see a 1st gen with good mileage as they were only rated 16 highway. Im not calling you a liar because I've been on this forum long enough to see the many random blazers that DO get that mileage. and normally, that mileage is seen with smaller motors, correct? And I did a quick search and wiki confirms that the 2nd gens were only offered with the 4.3L making at least that statement correct ( assuming wiki isnt lying).

 

stopped at 200.0 miles to get more go juice. took 14.95 gals to top off.
i started using 89 octane about 4 weeks ago and have seen modest gains (12.3-12.6 mpg to 13.3-13.7 mpg) still crap but hell, a gain is a gain...

 

i get 14mpg and i ran outta gas at 185 miles pulling into the gas station thats was with 400 pounds of tractor weights in the back. and then whatever my master set of craftsman tools weighs. maybe 200. so i got 600 extra pounds all the time. no women to drive around in the summer i was getting 19 with just my tools and a vac gauges so if i took the tools out (which would be over my cold dead body) i might get 20-21mpg

 

i get 14mpg (2nd gen) and ran outta gas at 185 miles as i was pulling into the gas station. thats with 400 pounds of tractor weights though. this isnt counting my master craftsman tool set. maybe 200 there. so im carrying an extra 600 pounds with me. in the summer i was getting 19 with the tool set still in. if i took the set out (over my cold dead body) i might get 20-21mpgs

-some reason this double posted sorry.

 

Curtis, what did you do with those reading glasses of mine??? i coulda swore BBK's profile info (top right corner) said Nov/09 join date. i guess i was in a bad mood last night, my bad.

actually, my '84, 2WD Blazer (with 2.8/5 spd) got the worst mileage out of all of the "S" series trucks i've owned (that'd be 6 1st gens, and 1 2nd gen). mind you it did have almost 400K kms on it when i yanked it out in '94, still ran great, just got crapy fuel mileage.

 

 

Haha no worries. I may not have a high post count, but I do pay attention most of the time on the forum. But I'm sure we can agree that with our blazers there seems to be a lot of hit and miss as far as MPG's go. I remember reading about one guy that got in the upwards like 28 or something crazy like that (given they were highway miles, but still).