Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Have you recently used your tax refund (or are you planning on using your tax refund) toward the payment of a new or used vehicle? Or, are you planning on using your tax refund toward any expenses related to your car?
If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by Friday, January 25 and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.

Are you the parent of a generation Z child (born in the mid-1990s to the early 2000s)? Do you have differing opinions on the importance of buying a car, what types of vehicles you're interested in, or just how you view cars in general? If so, a reporter would like to speak with you and your child. Please reach out to [email protected] by Friday, January 25 and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.

Chevy C/K Pickups (1996 - 1999)

powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
edited March 2014 in Chevrolet
I just wanted to start another topic devoted to
the C/K pickups with the Vortec engines. Our
original topic "'97 Chevy Silverado Complaints" was
killed because it had the word "Silverado" in it.
They grouped it with the "Chevy Silverado" topic
which is all about the new trucks.

Note to administrators: The C/K trucks had the
Silverado package as an interior option, but are
completely different than the new Silverado truck.
The engines available for the half-tons were the
5.7L, 5.0L, and 4.3L. The 7.4L and 5.7L are still
available, but only in the HD trucks.

Anyway, just to start converstation, I'll start
out by saying that I prefer the 5.7L over the 5.3L
because the latter has less horsepower at normal
driving rpms (< 3000). Real world gas mileage
appears to be about the same too. Plus, the 5.7L
seems to respond better to headers, and performance


  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    I also think the looks of the C/K's are much more
    pleasing than the new ones. The GMC C/K's front end is particularly nice looking. In fact, in the
    truck magazines, there are ads from companies that make a conversion from the normal Chevy C/K front
    end look to the GMC look but with the Chevy Bowtie
    instead of the GMC emblem. So I must not be the only one who likes the GMC looks better. Comments?
  • Get over the past and on with the new. Silverado Rules! C/K is a nice truck but lacks many options, like 4 doors, autotrac, larger choice of suspensions, just to name a few.

    I totally disagree with you about the 5.3l and performance mods. GM has greatly bottled the capabilities of the 5.3l to meet emissions. It is a known fact that the 5.3l has just as much if not more capability than the outdated 350 engine.
    Not to mention the fact that the 5.3l is built much more durable with 6 bolt mains, failsafe cooling system, much better oiling system, etc.

    The 350 was a good engine, but it needs to move over for the new King of the mountain.

    Don't believe everything you read about the torque curves. Not all the torque curve is revealed by one marketing stat. If you look at the facts, not pictures, the torque curve of the 5.3l is much flatter and is only 15 lbs less at every point up to the 350's peak at 3,200 rpm. Another thing you don't always see is that the 5.3l goes from 310 lbs torque at about 2,900 rpm to 325 lbs torque up to 5000 rpm before starting to drop. The 350's torque is less than the 5.3l peak torque and starts to drop around 4000 rpm. So if you look at the whole band, the 5.3l actually has the much more useful rpm band and it especially shows when towing at highway speeds.

    In addition, I have never personally experienced nor heard of anyone that ever got better than 17 mpg combined city and highway. Most actually see about 15 combined. I continually get 18 combined city and highway, almost 20 on all highway trips.
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Posts: 1,000
    you're a complete idiot. almost as bad as that
    LURD(tim) on the silverado page. i have a 2000
    silverado but, you won't find me insulting
    someone with previous year model. i've seen you
    on other topics and i've just got to say that
    you're the biggest IDIOT yet next to o'l LURDBOY.
    maybe you are LURDBOY.

  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Posts: 4,162
    Friends everywhere Red...

    and you still only have one sad.

    I think everyone in this chat room feels you get dumber and dumber with each post.

    Let me guess.....I'm just a lurd..

    get a new line...and maybe a new truck? would make all of us Silverado owners look a little bit better if you drove a dodge or something else other than what we drive.

    Lighten up and get that load outa your shorts...or is it a Lurd...and not a load?


    - Tim
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    Sorry but you're wrong about the 5.3L having a higher peak torque. The 350 has 330 lb-ft at 2800, while the 2000 5.3L is 325 lb-ft at 4000 rpm.
    You'll get no argument from me about the 5.3L being much better above 3200 rpm. But, how often does the average driver take his/her truck there.
    When I'm climbing a hill, the truck downshifts out of overdrive and the rpm's go to ~2500-3000 rpm depending on my speed. That's exactly where the 350's torque peak is, and you really feel it.
    Regarding fuel mileage, my truck is an ext-cab Z71 with 3.73 rearend 4-sp. auto, and of course the 5.7L engine and I consistantly get in the 19's with my daily commute to work. In fact, I take very careful records and I haven't gotten less than 19 since April of '99. In the summer I've gotten 21 mpg.
    Looking at the "2000 Silverado MPG" topic, I'm seeing an awful lot of 14's and 15's. Granted, some of the trucks are not fully broken in yet, but the real problem is that you have to wind the engine out to get the power, and that kills mileage.
    I like the new trucks, don't get me wrong, but I also like torque and the 5.7L has more useable torque. And also because it's not near it's peak potential like the 5.3L (which is to the 5.3L's
    credit), the 5.7L responds better to headers, cat-backs, and intake mods. That is, the 5.7L has more hidden potential.
    I just like the C/K's better for now.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Posts: 4,162
    Still am..

    But I always stuck with 350 or when the 350 was not available any more....It had to be 6.0 this time around.

    Doesn't get 19MPG....but who cares?...we are young right?

    The 5.3 did have a lot of pep....but it just ain't right for me...ya know?

    - Tim
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    Hi Tim,
    I agree, the 6.0L is great. Now if they would
    just make it an option in the 1/2-tons....but that'll never happen because of the CAFE requirements.

    I don't dislike the 5.3L, in fact, it's very fun
    to drive with all that high-end HP, I just think the 350 has some advantages too.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Posts: 4,162
    GM's rating already sux..(why do you think they offer so many S-10's for $69 a month?)..and if the 6.0 was in the 1/ would really suck!..

    Everybody would get it....being in a 3/4..less people will get it...and the fact that an 8600GVW truck does not fall into that class anyway...makes it so they can get around the laws. Ever notice the MPG is not given for 3/4's?..they don't have to give it.

    As mentioned also turned me on to the whole 3/4 spectrum...and made me realize that for me...I had been buying the wrong truck all these years....but we have had this discussion already.

    Good Luck

    - Tim
  • z71josez71jose Posts: 22
    I haven't seen the new body-styles in Mexico,
    but the C/K style Chevy for the Mexican market had the GMC front end with the bowtie in the middle.
    Go to and you'll see what I mean.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    Thanks for the link. I couldn't find any pictures
    of the c/k trucks. It doesn't help that I don't read spanish. Every time I clicked on something that looked like a c/k link, the link didn't work.
    But anyway, I've seen them converted in magazines and they look sharp. The bow-tie looks better than the GMC emblem.
  • anonymousanonymous Posts: 314
    my salesman went from a 1987 stepside to a 1998
    1500 ex cab sh bed which is a real creampuff.
    this thing is flawless. 350 runs peerrfect!
    only problem is that when driving on freeway with
    expansion joints(goota luv 'em) he says it
    bounces like crazy. told him i knew who to talk
    to about it and would let him know if anything
    could be done to help make ride less bouncy.
    right now he's trying some wieght in the bed,
    4 25 lb. bags of sand.

    any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
    like this topic too, C/K series is far from

  • wtdwtd Posts: 96
    I'm glad you brought the C/K topic back. I prefer the older style over the new. I like how they look better than the new. Granted the new truck has many new features and improvements but I'll let other people find out what the weak points and problems are. I have a 98 ext-cab Z-71 thats pretty well loaded and has been a very reliable truck. I plan on keeping it for quite awhile.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    Same truck as mine, same year and everything. Glad yours is still doing fine. How many miles on it? Mine is just about to turn over 16,000, and I haven't had one problem yet. Many of the critics have complained about the flexing, squeaking chassis, but my experience has been the complete opposite. It feels really solid and sturdy. Many of the passengers that I've taken with me, have commented on how smooth the power is. One big plus is the gas mileage. Who would have thought a few years ago that you could get 19-20 mpg in a full-sized, gas-powered 5.7L V8, 4x4?
    Anyway, glad you found the new topic.
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Posts: 1,000
    i was sure hoping to get some advice from you but
    i guess i might have to look to another forum for
    the ride problem for my salesman, we sell Dupont
    Corian and on occasion he carrys delicate samples
    to our customers. that is why we're looking for a
    solution for his problem.

    anyway i'm sorry you could not help us and good
    luck with this new forum. i hope it does die off
    like the last one due to lack of interest.

    thanx, red
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    what kind of tires and shocks does he have? Also, I didn't think that Corian was delicate...

    My problems on the expansion joints were taken care of by switching to edelbrock shocks and changing tires...
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Posts: 4,162
    have 16K on a 98...

    had the 00 8 months's got almost 14K miles..

    Oh well....

    - Tim
  • wtdwtd Posts: 96
    My truck has about 17,400 miles on it. I had a few problems with mine in the beginning... Bad frontend alignment, leaking power steering gear, leaking master cylinder, leaking gas tank, bad lower steering shaft and now a slightly leaking oil cooler line. The truck has the 2-3 shift clunk and crappy brakes but I've learned to live with this. I havn't had it in the shop for over a year now. I wish I could get the mileage that you are getting. I only get about 15 mpg right now with mostly intown driving. I run synthetic oil in the engine and soon will put it in the differentials. I also installed the high capacity AC-Delco air filter and a Borla cat-back exhaust system. Thats all I plan on doing on this truck
  • stevekstevek Posts: 362
    I have a '97 K1550 Z71 with the 5.7L Vortec. No problems the truck runs great until a couple of days ago when a knock started at idle or under acceleration (it cruises great, getting 17+ MPG combined). Several mechanics (including dealers) told me that the engine is "blown". The knock is at the lower part, possibly a bearing. They say I should put a brand new engine in. Although the truck has 90K miles on it (all highway, commuting and the oil changed reliogiously every 3K) this should of not occured. I am calling the Chevy 800# (I know good luck....hehhee) see if they can help me on this. A new motor installed is 4K. Any comment advice?
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    We have an '89 Buick LeSabre that we drive a few times a week to reduce the mileage on our newer vehicles: '98 truck and a '96 Impala SS.
    The Impala only has 17,600 miles on it. It's well worth the extra insurance cost (only liability) to keep the '89 around. My wife and I also work at the same place (different buildings, thank heavens!) so we're able to car pool, which also saves miles.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    Thanks for the info. I must have been really
    lucky, because my truck has been totally trouble-free (haven't even seen the dealer since I bought it, I do all the maintenance myself) and I have some light mods (headers, cat-back, K&N, ram-air). The hard tonneau cover really helps the mileage, and I'm pretty light on the pedal.

    Sorry to hear about your engine. That's a bit scary. How does the power feel. I imagine the knock sensor is retarding the timing so you're probably losing some power from that if nothing else. If it cruises great, are they sure it's a bearing? Wouldn't that be an "all the time" thing? Well, it sucks that it gave out, but $4K
    for a new engine is a lot less than buying a new truck. Plus your truck's value will go up some to compensate for that (as long as you keep all the documentation and sell it yourself instead of trading it in when the time comes). I know I'd pay more for a truck with a newer engine.
    Just dreaming out loud: At the end of the year, GM is putting a 325 hp 6.0L in the 2001 Denali/Escalade. That means it's fair game to swap it into a 1/2 ton truck. I wonder what the price differential would be (and can your truck wait that long?) to put it in. That 6.0L has considerably more torque/displacement than the 5.7L (which is already pretty impressive) AND more displacement. I imagine that would cost around 10-15K, though, because you'd need all the computer and emissions for the 6.0L (and maybe the HD tranny). But, you'd have a hot-rod, stump-pulling, one-of-a-kind, better-looking-than-new truck for that 10-15K.
  • anonymousanonymous Posts: 314
    maybe that budlitedork was right, give it up. i
    mean you don't even have the decency to reply to
    ones question. it wont't be long before this
    topic is archived or tossed completly also. see

  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Posts: 4,162
    96 Impala eh??

    I thought about one of those...

    around here they still bring damn near what they costed new!

    Nice car....but it just wouldn't be a truck...

    I already have a summer car...and 2 cars and one truck just doesn't make 2 cars the wife has...4 is enough for 2 people..

    I always said there are only two 4 doors I would ever buy....and Impala SS and a Suburban..

    (4-door Silverado don't count.....real doors)

    - Tim
  • stevekstevek Posts: 362
    If I replace that engine the only place that truck goes from my house is the junk yard, I will get my money's worth. 3 different dealers told me that a new engine is called for. The truck runs great, no power loss, just a lot of knocking noise, which incidentaly misses beats once in a while then comes back. Camping season is coming up and I don't want to break down with the trailer, otherwise I would just run it until it stops.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    I don't know the answer to your question. Sorry.
    When I first read your question, I didn't know the answer but I didn't have time to write. Then the next time I checked this topic, it didn't show your question so I forgot all about it. I didn't
    mean to ignore you.

    I'll work on my manners if you'll work on yours.
    Your last reply was a bit rude.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    The Impala is a very fun car. You're right.
    They're going for very close to what they cost new. Brand new they cost $26,192 with every option including destination. There was no coming
    down from MSRP. They were way too hot. Many people paid more than MSRP. Now, if you find one with less than 5K miles (they're out there) you'll pay about $26-29K. Finding a good one with around 30K miles is fairly easy, you'll pay about $22-23K.
    I got mine about a month ago and got the deal of the century. It had 15K miles and lots of performance mods (headers, cat-back, 3.42 gears,
    cold-air kit, hypertech,...) and I got it for $21K. Of course I had to travel 6 states away to get it, but it was worth it. The drive home was a lot of fun. It goes from 60 to 90 in an instant which makes passing, merging, etc. a breeze.

    "If I replace that engine the only place that truck goes from my house is the junk yard, I will get my money's worth."

    Does the "If" mean you're considering other options? (i.e. getting a new truck?).
    If you do get it replaced, let us know how it goes. I'm interested to see how smoothly something like that works. Good luck!
  • wtdwtd Posts: 96
    There was a TSB out about startup knock on the 96-98 5.7L. I don't know what it is at this time. You might just try replacing the lower bearings. I did this once on a 72 LTD that had rod knock and low oil pressure. This fixed it right up. no more knock or low pressure and we didn't even pull the motor or turn the crank, just dropped the pan. Car was still running good when I got rid of it a couple of years later.
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Posts: 1,000
    rude? it was more like i put my foot in my mouth.
    sorry about that, i tend to be impatient. i do
    need to work on that.

    thanks anyway for your reply. i guess i did'nt
    give you much to go on. Obyone asked about tires
    and shocks. i'm know that the shocks are stock
    (original) and tires are firestone. still not
    much to go on. other than the bouncing on freeway
    exspansion joints the truck runs great.

  • akjbmwakjbmw Posts: 231
    Got a &#146;98 Silverado, ExtCab, K1500, ShortBed, 5.7, in the dark blue (039?) and I also have the pronounced expansion joint buck. Pmetric BigZero BigFoots and stock Bilsteins. I like everything else about the truck except a transmission failure 7 weeks after purchase on 12/31/99 with 47K miles. Dealer paid… all is well. I went out on a dirt-road trip (Gerlack to Pyramid Lake - + or &#150; 60 miles) yesterday and was extremely amazed at the smoothness. Far better than my old 2002 would have done. More weight and bigger tires make a difference. Suspension differences too.

    I will put in different shocks and report back.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    It's a good idea to lose those Bilsteins
  • 97ltz7197ltz71 Posts: 9
    hi guys

    Just bought a used '97 silverado 4WD loaded Leather, Z71, the works. 33500 miles. I'm wonder if anyone knows where i can find what the option codes mean? I got them out of the glove box, but the new (2000) codes don't seem the same.

    Also wonder about a repair manual. Buy the GM one or go with a Chilton or Haynes?
This discussion has been closed.