5020s rock
Member
hi-might go buy a truck today. ford is done for me. have noticed the chevys with the 5.3
are more $ than the 4.8's. is there a reason?
are more $ than the 4.8's. is there a reason?
- Thread starter 5020s rock
- Start date
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
Check the other equipment. The up-level "LTZ" models come with 5.3 standard.
Check out your other options carefully, as many of those are much more important than the engine. You'll want the trailering package and locking differential. And I think if you get those two options the 6-speed automatic trans is thrown in for free.
Go to chevy.com and use the "build your own" tool to see how the different options work together and affect the price.
Check out your other options carefully, as many of those are much more important than the engine. You'll want the trailering package and locking differential. And I think if you get those two options the 6-speed automatic trans is thrown in for free.
Go to chevy.com and use the "build your own" tool to see how the different options work together and affect the price.
Hotflashjr
Well-known Member
- Location
- Western MA
I have the six speed and 6.2 liter in my GMC. Love everything BUT the six speed. Has been a headache for me but the truck is a 2007, first year of the transmission. There have been some improvements since then. I would stay away from any GM product with the 6 speed from 2007 or 2008 if I were to give any advice. I have heard the 4.8 is a dog doing any towing or heavy hauling.
Russ from MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- Bemidji MN
We have had a couple of 5.3's, don't know if I would want smaller. We pull trailers occasionally, It depends what you are going to use it for. Like someone said, the 5.3 is standard in some models,we have a Silverado Z71, I want most of those options.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
I have a 2001 4.8. Been good so far, though very low miles. Gets 16-17 every day driving and about 20.5 hwy. Has plenty of power for me. But if pulling heavy loads, probably go bigger.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
GMC has a half ton with the hauling package option
with a respectable payload capacity. Many thousand
less $$$ than a 3/4 ton pickup.
with a respectable payload capacity. Many thousand
less $$$ than a 3/4 ton pickup.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Check the mileage stats. The 5.3 burns less fuel than the 4.8.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Wait a while.
The GMC/Chev pickup production line is scheduled for a 21 week re-tool after they run off some extra 2012 trucks for inventory.
The direct injection V8 gassers are going to be tough competition to diesels dollar per dollar.
The GMC/Chev pickup production line is scheduled for a 21 week re-tool after they run off some extra 2012 trucks for inventory.
The direct injection V8 gassers are going to be tough competition to diesels dollar per dollar.
Texasmark1
Well-known Member
Me too. I also like the soft suspension I got with it and the seamless shifting 4 sp auto. "Trailer tow" shift point modification really makes a powerhouse of that little MPFI pushrod V8 and even when you aren't towing, if you are in hilly terrain, it makes it a lot peppier, fewer shift points, and better mpg. I like the all around mpg also.
Been with Dodge for a lot of years, but I wanted the nearest dealer and the bow tie won the toss.
Mark
Been with Dodge for a lot of years, but I wanted the nearest dealer and the bow tie won the toss.
Mark
Texasmark1
Well-known Member
My nearest dealer, a bow tie house, is in a small town and the family owned business has been successful for 42 years. Standard equipment includes locking diff, trailer tow (includes tranny cooler, harness, and receiver hitch) and On-Star even if it is not standard equip for the model you are looking at.
I have had mine for over 6 months, the free test period expired and I subscribed as I had time to think about it and I like the security primarily, for $35 a month......and my little, small town, dealer, said that if I got in trouble and needed help call him and he'd come and get me.....NEVER had a dealer support customers like that. Yeah, I'd pay for his tow truck, and he would get the business and profits from my problems, but he would be there when I needed him and in today's environment and at my age, I really don't like the idea of being stuck out somewhere broken down. So he profits from his efforts.....GREAT!
Mark
I have had mine for over 6 months, the free test period expired and I subscribed as I had time to think about it and I like the security primarily, for $35 a month......and my little, small town, dealer, said that if I got in trouble and needed help call him and he'd come and get me.....NEVER had a dealer support customers like that. Yeah, I'd pay for his tow truck, and he would get the business and profits from my problems, but he would be there when I needed him and in today's environment and at my age, I really don't like the idea of being stuck out somewhere broken down. So he profits from his efforts.....GREAT!
Mark
Texasmark1
Well-known Member
I have the 3.23 rear and pull tandem stock and utility trailers, and my boat. I live in rolling hills at about 800' altitude. Mine is real peppy and with a 6800 GVWR and the soft ride, no way will I buy a 3/4 ton......but I am commenting about my usage, not others, so for others it may be a dog due to their application.
Mark
Mark
Texasmark1
Well-known Member
Yeah but I can't get the soft suspension with the 5.3 besides costing more and being more complicated of a design.
Mark
Mark
You will get a lot better mileage with the 5.3L/6 spd combo vs. the 4.8L/4 spd. Plus your towing capacity will be better.
Have driven many of them both 4.8 and 5.3. The LTZ or Z71 adds more money, a normal LT gets the job done just fine. Trailer package/locking diff, gets you right around 9500lbs on the trailer would ought to be more than enough.
Rick
Have driven many of them both 4.8 and 5.3. The LTZ or Z71 adds more money, a normal LT gets the job done just fine. Trailer package/locking diff, gets you right around 9500lbs on the trailer would ought to be more than enough.
Rick
Tx Jim
Well-known Member
- Location
- Coyote Flats, Texas
Dang buickanddeere I wished you'd have posted that statement before I purchased the pre-owned '08 GMC 1/2 ton 4X4 4.8L 3.42 gears that I own that gets 11 MPG driving around my farm.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
TxJim I don't mind butting heads with you but I
wish I could have let you know in time.
My old beater 2003 crew cab 4X4 with the LQ4 6L
averages 13mpg just putting around.
After those direct injection V8's are on the
market. The diesel option is going to become very
rare. GM may even drop the Duramax. As the do-
gooder vehicle hating pricks in California have
priced the diesel out of the market with CAFE and
EPA rules.
I'm surprised and pleased how the wife's four
banger Terrain AWD does on fuel. With a small deck
over landscape trailer and a small enclosed
trailer. It will do 95% of the work the pickup
did. Just won't haul the pulling tractor and
trailer.
wish I could have let you know in time.
My old beater 2003 crew cab 4X4 with the LQ4 6L
averages 13mpg just putting around.
After those direct injection V8's are on the
market. The diesel option is going to become very
rare. GM may even drop the Duramax. As the do-
gooder vehicle hating pricks in California have
priced the diesel out of the market with CAFE and
EPA rules.
I'm surprised and pleased how the wife's four
banger Terrain AWD does on fuel. With a small deck
over landscape trailer and a small enclosed
trailer. It will do 95% of the work the pickup
did. Just won't haul the pulling tractor and
trailer.
Tx Jim
Well-known Member
- Location
- Coyote Flats, Texas
As far as I'm concerned our head butting is a form of ENTERTAINMENT.
When I bought this truck I was thinking smaller = better fuel mileage "WRONG"
5020s rock
Member
a 4.8 getting 11 mph...scratching my head.
i think the 5.3's have won.
i think the 5.3's have won.
I would not worry about having to attend the funeral of the pickup diesel any time soon.
Yes, the new Ford Ecoboost and GM gen 5 V8's are direct injection, but they are still injecting fuel in the intake stroke and compressing a fuel / air mix. They cannot run the more efficient cylinder pressures of a diesel engine until they are compressing only air and adding the fuel at the start of the power stroke.
As it is now, detonation of pre mixed fuel and air is the killer of really efficient cylinder pressures in a gas motor.
Until someone comes up with a way to inject gasoline at the top of the compression stroke so they can use diesel like compression ratios, they can never match the fuel efficiency of a DI diesel.
The Ford Ecoboost DI engine is on the road now, but only makes 20+ mpg at light loads.
Owners report that if you put it on the cruse control at 60 MPH, it will make 20-25 mpg, but put any load on it or drive 70+MPH and mpg is in the teens.
When someone builds one with 17/1 CR and DI at TDC on the compression stroke, then we may see diesel like fuel economy out of a gas engine.
Yes, the new Ford Ecoboost and GM gen 5 V8's are direct injection, but they are still injecting fuel in the intake stroke and compressing a fuel / air mix. They cannot run the more efficient cylinder pressures of a diesel engine until they are compressing only air and adding the fuel at the start of the power stroke.
As it is now, detonation of pre mixed fuel and air is the killer of really efficient cylinder pressures in a gas motor.
Until someone comes up with a way to inject gasoline at the top of the compression stroke so they can use diesel like compression ratios, they can never match the fuel efficiency of a DI diesel.
The Ford Ecoboost DI engine is on the road now, but only makes 20+ mpg at light loads.
Owners report that if you put it on the cruse control at 60 MPH, it will make 20-25 mpg, but put any load on it or drive 70+MPH and mpg is in the teens.
When someone builds one with 17/1 CR and DI at TDC on the compression stroke, then we may see diesel like fuel economy out of a gas engine.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
iirc it's 11.4 to 1 CR on the four cylinder Chev
which runs 87 octane fuel.
The high diesel compression is more for cold
ability starting than it is for fuel efficiency.
Higher and higher compression ratio's return an
efficiency gain but at a diminishing non linear
rate.
which runs 87 octane fuel.
The high diesel compression is more for cold
ability starting than it is for fuel efficiency.
Higher and higher compression ratio's return an
efficiency gain but at a diminishing non linear
rate.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
The direct injection gassers do not inject the primary fuel charge until just prior to TDC along with the spark.
Some direct injection engines do inject a wiff of "pilot" fuel just after the exhaust valve closes for "cooling". However the mixture is too lean to burn until the pilot injection event takes place later.
Given the lighter weight of the direct injection gasser. No EGR valve. No EGR cooler. No turbo. No Intercooler. Lighter starter. Single battery. No glow plugs. No variable vane waste gate. No urea exhaust fluid. No particulate filter and a lighter weight trans. Lets forgot how much cheaper gasoline is that diesel. Lets see a larger oil pan that requires more oil. Some spendy fuel, engine oil and trans oil filters too.
Does that add up to less updront cost and down the road service?
The light diesel's days in pickups are numbered.Unless the EPA and CAFE lighten the regs back to 2006 levels.
If a diesel pickup could be a 24 valve Cummins with just a turbo and a Bosch "P" pump. Along with a six speed manual trans. With diesel costing the same of less than gasoline. Then sure.
Some direct injection engines do inject a wiff of "pilot" fuel just after the exhaust valve closes for "cooling". However the mixture is too lean to burn until the pilot injection event takes place later.
Given the lighter weight of the direct injection gasser. No EGR valve. No EGR cooler. No turbo. No Intercooler. Lighter starter. Single battery. No glow plugs. No variable vane waste gate. No urea exhaust fluid. No particulate filter and a lighter weight trans. Lets forgot how much cheaper gasoline is that diesel. Lets see a larger oil pan that requires more oil. Some spendy fuel, engine oil and trans oil filters too.
Does that add up to less updront cost and down the road service?
The light diesel's days in pickups are numbered.Unless the EPA and CAFE lighten the regs back to 2006 levels.
If a diesel pickup could be a 24 valve Cummins with just a turbo and a Bosch "P" pump. Along with a six speed manual trans. With diesel costing the same of less than gasoline. Then sure.
Gas engines are the best they have ever been, while Diesel engines are so choked with the emissions rules that they have gone backwards 40 years. In addition, I suspect 75 % of the light diesels on the road are owned by folks that don't do enough heavy pulling to ever break even on the things.
I hope your right about the new generation of direct injection gasoline engines, but I don't rexpect any huge economy gains very soon.
I hope your right about the new generation of direct injection gasoline engines, but I don't rexpect any huge economy gains very soon.
This U tube video does a pretty good job of showing the timing events of the GM direct injection system.
GM direct injection.
GM direct injection.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
You are certainly correct about little to no gain in truck fuel efficiency.
The folks at CAFE and EPA either have no clue, believe in Star Trek tech is just around the corner. Or they are purposely trying to stop people from driving. I would lean towards the later 3rd option.
Given the mpg gains while thinking of the family's 1977 Chev 400 four barrel 4X4 with 3 speed auto obtaining 4-5mpg. Compared to my larger and more powerful 2003 4X4 crew cab with 13mpg just puttering around.
There is very little left to gain in engine efficiency, drivetrain looses, improved tires and improved aerodynamics.
Fuel hasn't increased in btu's per gallon either.
Here is a chart that also compares the cost of electricity vs. hydrocarbon fuels.
GGE - Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (US Gallons) Tables
Fuel - Liquid, US Gallons GGE GGE % BTU/Gal kWh/Gal
GGE Calculated for Gasoline in US Gallons at 114,000 BTU per Gallon
Gasoline (base)[2] 1.0000 100.00% 114,000 33.41
Gasoline (conventional, summer)[2] 0.9960 100.40% 114,500 33.56
Gasoline (conventional, winter)[2] 1.0130 98.72% 112,500 32.97
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ethanol)[2] 1.0190 98.14% 111,836 32.78
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ETBE)[2] 1.0190 98.14% 111,811 32.77
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, MTBE)[2] 1.0200 98.04% 111,745 32.75
Gasoline (10% MBTE)[3] 1.0200 98.04% 112,000 32.83
Gasoline (regular unleaded)[4] 1.0000 100.00% 114,100 33.44
Diesel #2[4] 0.8800 113.64% 129,500 37.95
Biodiesel (B100)[4] 0.9600 104.17% 118,300 34.80
Bio Diesel (B20)[4] 0.9000 111.11% 127,250 37.12
Liquid natural gas (LNG)[4] 1.5362 65.10% 75,000 21.75
Liquefied petroleum gas (propane) (LPG)[4] 1.3500 74.04% 84,300 24.75
Methanol fuel (M100)[4] 2.0100 49.75% 56,800 16.62
Ethanol fuel (E100)[4] 1.5000 66.67% 76,100 22.27
Ethanol (E85)[4] 1.3900 71.94% 81,800 24.04
Jet fuel (naphtha)[5] 0.9700 103.09% 118,700 34.44
Jet fuel (kerosene)[5] 0.9000 111.11% 128,100 37.12
GGE calculated on Non-Liquid Fuels
Fuel - Non Liquid GGE GGE % BTU/unit kWh/Unit
Gasoline (base)[2] 1.0000 100.00% 114,000 BTU/gal 33.41
Compressed natural gas (CNG)[4] 126.67 cu ft (3.587 m3) 900 BTU/cu ft
Hydrogen at 101.325 kPa 357.37 cu ft 319 BTU/cu ft[6]
Hydrogen by weight 0.997 kg (2.198 lb)[7] 119.9 MJ/kg (51,500 BTU/lb)[8]
Nitromethane ~2.3 41.23% ~47,000 BTU/gal
Electricity 33.40 kilowatt-hours 3,413 BTU/(kW·h) [9][10] 33.40
Electricity Costs
for 1 GGE
1 GGE = 33.40 KWH
For Local Rate
Per KWH $/Gallon
Equivalent
$0.07 $2.338
$0.08 $2.670
$0.09 $3.006
$0.10 $3.340
$0.11 $3.674
$0.12 $4.000
$0.13 $4.342
$0.14 $4.670
$0.15 $5.010
$0.16 $5.344
$0.17 $5.678
$0.18 $6.012
$0.19 $6.346
$0.20 $6.680
$0.25 $8.350
$0.27 $9.018
$0.28 $9.352
$0.29 $9.686
$0.30 $10.020
The folks at CAFE and EPA either have no clue, believe in Star Trek tech is just around the corner. Or they are purposely trying to stop people from driving. I would lean towards the later 3rd option.
Given the mpg gains while thinking of the family's 1977 Chev 400 four barrel 4X4 with 3 speed auto obtaining 4-5mpg. Compared to my larger and more powerful 2003 4X4 crew cab with 13mpg just puttering around.
There is very little left to gain in engine efficiency, drivetrain looses, improved tires and improved aerodynamics.
Fuel hasn't increased in btu's per gallon either.
Here is a chart that also compares the cost of electricity vs. hydrocarbon fuels.
GGE - Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (US Gallons) Tables
Fuel - Liquid, US Gallons GGE GGE % BTU/Gal kWh/Gal
GGE Calculated for Gasoline in US Gallons at 114,000 BTU per Gallon
Gasoline (base)[2] 1.0000 100.00% 114,000 33.41
Gasoline (conventional, summer)[2] 0.9960 100.40% 114,500 33.56
Gasoline (conventional, winter)[2] 1.0130 98.72% 112,500 32.97
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ethanol)[2] 1.0190 98.14% 111,836 32.78
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ETBE)[2] 1.0190 98.14% 111,811 32.77
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, MTBE)[2] 1.0200 98.04% 111,745 32.75
Gasoline (10% MBTE)[3] 1.0200 98.04% 112,000 32.83
Gasoline (regular unleaded)[4] 1.0000 100.00% 114,100 33.44
Diesel #2[4] 0.8800 113.64% 129,500 37.95
Biodiesel (B100)[4] 0.9600 104.17% 118,300 34.80
Bio Diesel (B20)[4] 0.9000 111.11% 127,250 37.12
Liquid natural gas (LNG)[4] 1.5362 65.10% 75,000 21.75
Liquefied petroleum gas (propane) (LPG)[4] 1.3500 74.04% 84,300 24.75
Methanol fuel (M100)[4] 2.0100 49.75% 56,800 16.62
Ethanol fuel (E100)[4] 1.5000 66.67% 76,100 22.27
Ethanol (E85)[4] 1.3900 71.94% 81,800 24.04
Jet fuel (naphtha)[5] 0.9700 103.09% 118,700 34.44
Jet fuel (kerosene)[5] 0.9000 111.11% 128,100 37.12
GGE calculated on Non-Liquid Fuels
Fuel - Non Liquid GGE GGE % BTU/unit kWh/Unit
Gasoline (base)[2] 1.0000 100.00% 114,000 BTU/gal 33.41
Compressed natural gas (CNG)[4] 126.67 cu ft (3.587 m3) 900 BTU/cu ft
Hydrogen at 101.325 kPa 357.37 cu ft 319 BTU/cu ft[6]
Hydrogen by weight 0.997 kg (2.198 lb)[7] 119.9 MJ/kg (51,500 BTU/lb)[8]
Nitromethane ~2.3 41.23% ~47,000 BTU/gal
Electricity 33.40 kilowatt-hours 3,413 BTU/(kW·h) [9][10] 33.40
Electricity Costs
for 1 GGE
1 GGE = 33.40 KWH
For Local Rate
Per KWH $/Gallon
Equivalent
$0.07 $2.338
$0.08 $2.670
$0.09 $3.006
$0.10 $3.340
$0.11 $3.674
$0.12 $4.000
$0.13 $4.342
$0.14 $4.670
$0.15 $5.010
$0.16 $5.344
$0.17 $5.678
$0.18 $6.012
$0.19 $6.346
$0.20 $6.680
$0.25 $8.350
$0.27 $9.018
$0.28 $9.352
$0.29 $9.686
$0.30 $10.020
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy