Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
ANY QUESTIONS for dave40 aka CHEVY LOVER
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
these engines have plenty torque. You're trying to make this relatively simple feature, as tnt2 describes, a knockdown vs GM. If you drive one, you'll see its not. thats the reason i said something.
I am surprised to find that there is actually some valid information in this topic in spite of the title.
I visited this topic to see if Dave40 would establish any credibility. No surprise, none found.
cdean, kcram: Do you remember the “character” from almost a year ago who was almost as disruptive? He eventually went away.
From Truck Trend Feb 1999, here are the numbers:
5.4L Triton Rear wheel torque 281.2 lb.ft/3000 rpm
5.9L Magnum Rear wheel torque 257.5 lb.ft/3500 rpm
5.3L Vortec Rear wheel torque 221.7 lb.ft/3750 rpm
5.4L Triton Peak rear wheel hp 209.2 hp/4250 rpm
5.9L Magnum Peak rear wheel hp 194.7 hp/4500 rpm
5.3L Vortec Peak rear wheel hp 182.8 hp/5200 rpm
I have several comments. The data Truck Trend reported is credible, but their interpretation is faulty. The numbers for rear wheel torque from the chassis dynomometer have nothing to do at all with gearing, because they are expressed at the crankshaft even though the measurement is made at the rear wheel. So calling it "rear wheel torque" is misleading. How do you know this? Because if the rear wheels were actually spinning 3750 rpm, the surface speed would be above 350 mph. Thus 3750 is obviously the crankshaft rpm. To calculate the actual torque at the rear wheel you multiply engine torque times the gear ratio you are in. But since the comparisons we want to draw are at the flywheel, I think kcram was fair to conclude the vortec 5.3L needs a tow/haul switch because of a lack of engine bottom-end torque. But I'm with cdean that it still has pleasing power in a general sense. Speaking as an owner of a '99 lt. pewter metallic Silverado, I think if I was towing a medium size 4500-5000 pound trailer up the hills where I go, without tow/haul the transmission would have to be downshifting frequently in order to maintain a comfortable momentum. With tow/haul, it raises the shiftpoint rpm, and thus reduces the frequency of shifts as it carries the rpm's farther in each gear. If indeed that is less comfortable, I submit it is no more noisy at 4000 rpm than the diesel is at 2000 rpm. While the old Ford 302 with its low end torque and a 3 spd auto maybe didn't need to shift much, it wasn't going as fast as the Silverado up these hills either. Just different ways of getting the job done. I am not disappointed in the Silverado because I understood the old axiom, "there is no substitute for cubic inches." The notion the 5.3 was going to out-torque the older 350 by a significant margin was not a notion I was ready to accept. But just getting performance close to the old 350 while adding best in class fuel economy was enough value added to make me buy it.
You also notice Dave has not had anything to say here since I posted the link of Dodge using the Allison before Chevy/GMC...
Rear wheel torque is still a valid term. It measures the engine torque that actually makes it to the rear wheels at any given engine speed, as opposed to the higher figure the engine will generate sitting on a rack. You're correct that the actual tire torque is a different figure, but dyno shops make corrections for the tire, axle ratio, and transmission/transfer case ratios.
As for the figures, it's a reasonable averaging of all the published material that I work with, and I'm sure cdean does the same. Time will tell if GM's attempt at using steady torque over a wider powerband will beat Ford and Dodge's use of higher torque at lower rpm. This refers to gasoline engines, of course. Until the Isuzu 6.6 V8 shows up, comparing the current GM 6.5 to the Cummins and Navistar is pretty unfair.
cdean and I argue a lot - don't mind us. But unlike this topic's titleholder, we argue trucks, not people.
I do get the numbers I speak from a variety of sources, there usually isn't too much variation.
One thing I'd like to point out is that there is a lot of comparison of torque and pulling power of the 5.3 vs the 5.4 vs the 5.9. The workhorse of GMs family is the 6.0. It was an interesting design strategy of 3 midsize v8s. I would really like to see one of those uphill pulling wars between the 3 motors to see just how that broad power band on the 5.3 would do. But I think the 6.0 would walk away easily from the 5.4 and 5.9 becuz its powerband from 2K to 4K rpms is around the 5.4 and 5.9 peak values.
I think the 'real' replacement of the ol' 350 is the 6.0. the 5.3 is a in between, motor, great power for light hauling, good mileage for empty driving.
I have to say Kcram I believe in the powerband. (not much of a slogan, eh) I was skeptical when I first saw the numbers come out a year or two ago, but after getting behind the wheel and putting my foot into one, I'm a believer. My 350 now has spec torque of 330 ft lbs. The 4.8 I test drove specs at 285 ftlbs (correct me if I'm wrong). The 4.8 in the basically the same size truck, will run circles around my current truck.
Dave40, I hate to see the disappointment in store for you when you decide to put your foot into it against the new Ford Lightning, or the old GMC Cyclone.
F first
O on
R race
D day
Its kinda like Kcram said, you see it here, there --you get a good idea of it then. I know I've seen all the Chevy torque curves in several brochures. I've seen Ford torque curves in those same Chevy brochures. I've also seen Ford and Chevy torque curves on independent web sites, but we'll have to clear some cob webs to remember exactly which one. I do remember several JPEGs of all the Ford torque curves.
AS for the arguments on not trusting the brochure: the Ford torque curve seen in the Chevrolet brochure was identical to the Ford torque curve on the independent site. If it wasn't, Ford would be sueing GM, big time. Remember, they can skew it with scale, but they can't change the actual numbers.
Don't worry, I understand your skepticism. I feel the same way about the chassis dyno numbers discussed, I'd like to see them myself.
Oh, and how bout this acronym
F irst
O n
R ace
D ay right behind Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt
I want the six spd, and a bet theres 1000's more who would a ALLISON 6sp, over the current 4spd.
I see that its dissapointing to you that dodge is bringing the 6spd to there trucks first.
SO SAD!
You are the man!
But good effort for Penske team at Daytona. Rusty Wallace pole, Jeremy Mayfield 3rd.
The addition of the Allison 6 speed to the already overpriced Cummins is going to put the already overpriced Dodge Ram out of reach for a lot of "everyday" people. You may as well buy a Peterbilt if you're going to spend that kind of money.
A buddy of mine bought a 3/4 ton Dodge w/Cummins a couple of years ago and paid over $36,000. My brother in law just bought a Ford crew cab 4WD Super Duty with the Power Stroke and paid over $36,000. He put 5,000 miles on it and now he's selling it because the auto tranny is making noise and Ford found it to be within their "acceptable" range. They won't fix it. The Cummins is a good engine but the jury is still out on the Power Stroke and its longevity.
In comparison I just ordered a '99 crew cab Chevy 4WD 3/4 ton loaded with everything available and powered by a 454. OTD price is $29,000. There's no way I can justify spending $7,000 to $8,000 dollars more on a Ford or Dodge. I can buy a hell of lot of gas with that much money. Gas is a lot cheaper than diesel where I live and the diesels are more expensive to maintain. Diesels last longer but you know the old saying about the Dodges. The truck disintegrates around the engine. Not many people drive a pickup the 300,000 mile life of a well maintained diesel engine. The truck body won't last that long.
My point is this: These diesel rigs (Ford and Dodge now, perhaps Chevy next year) have gotten into the price range of a new house (OK maybe 1/2 a new house). You're paying $4,000 to $5,000 more just for the engine and, absent rare circumstances, most people don't buy them out of need or common sense. It's just ego. I'm open for attack now by the hard-core diesel lovers but I think my logic is right on with this.
The diesel engines are more expensive, but pay for themselves in 100-120K miles (80-100 for the Dodge). The 6 speed auto would be fantastic -- I'd take it on my gas engine if it was an option. If it has a nice steep overdrive (I'd love .50) it could pay for itself in 50-60K miles even on my V10! As for trucks not lasting 300K, that depends a lot on where you live. Down here (Texas) its not uncommon at all.
Ummmm... well, with the Cummins, maybe not as quietly
Just don't try to park it at the grocery store.
Saving lots of money by not owning anything with 4 wheels.
I gotta open a web page and start advertizing some engineering gimmick soon. Maybe I could afford a 3/4 ton if I did.......
GM has been using Allison trans in ther campers for years now.
So what if dodge has it first.Who says they will? Sonds as if the will come out about the same time.
WHO CARES WHO HAS IT FIRST!
not the issue.
Everone agrees the trans is bullet proof.
This is also a magazine that will drive a truck for a week and put "N/A" in the spec box under tire size because they were too lazy to get on their knees and read the tire itself.
The extra capacity air cleaner that comes stock from Chevy is just that. It doesn't push any more air into the engine to make it run better - it just catches more dirt and goes longer between filter changes. No increased performance over the normal air filter.
I agree. When thought out with common sense, these diesels only are beneficial for snowbirds and very high mileage drivers (professional cowboys etc). You are right on in that only the basic engine is covered with the 100,000 mile warranty. A good gas engine will go well beyond that when maintained properly and is much cheaper to maintain and rebuild.
Stanford,
Yes, the Ford is a newer model, but $2,000 for the V10 over the Chevy 454??? I think the 454, in the real world, will run the tires off that Ford V10. The V10 is a weak engine according to what I have read in Four Wheeler and Peterson's Off Road magazines. Plus, the 454 has years of track record to back up its reliability and the Ford V10 has only been out a couple of years - no track record. Also, I was comparing diesels to gas engines because that was my intention - I don't follow your question about that.
I didn't think any air cleaner "pushed more air in".
I'd have to believe that there is some reduction to airflow restriction when you have larger surface area to draw through. But you are correct, the major reason I purchased this option was dusty Arizona backroads.
You said:
"There's no way I can justify spending $7,000
to $8,000 dollars more on a Ford or Dodge"
I was pointing out that your numbers were misleading at best. There's a lot of nice things about the F-SD series that haven't made it into the Chevys yet -- just because they've had a more recent overhaul if nothing else. I wasn't suggesting that the V10 alone was worth $2K.
I didn't notice that you were getting a 3/4 ton either -- mine's a 1 ton DRW. That probably puts the actual price on both at right about the same place. I certainly don't think you're saving $7-8K getting the Chevy. As for the V10 -- I certainly wouldn't call it a weak engine. Decent mileage and excellent towing power, with a very usable powerband.
When you get down to it, they're both good trucks. I feel that the final decision falls more to personal preference than any other issue. I drove both (and the Dodge) before making up my mind, I'm sure you did two. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. If one was really a long distance ahead of the other, they just wouldn't sell.
They are making 2500's, although I getting pissed at GM. I ordered my truck at the end of October. My build week was 2/8. I talked to the dealer yesterday and find out that my truck was not built and shows no new status. Apparently a truck very close to mine (Sierra K2500HD Ext Cab Long Bed) with an Auto instead of my 5spd WAS built and is on the way to california. The dealer claims he can get no updated info on the 5sp (which is what is holding the order), and of course the GM Customer Service # is a joke. Two other people here reported seeing 2500 long beds on lots in Colorado and Maine.
Which one are you waiting for?
I agree with Sanford. I have been looking at Chevy, Ford, and Dodge. Each has pluses and minuses over the other. Personal preference and a good dealer should weigh heavy. I am still not sure which one I will buy. The difference in price among the trucks when similarly equiped is negligible. I did look at a Ford F-150 today that had the AC and 4 wheel anti-lock disk brakes fully discounted on the sticker.
I ordered a chevy 2500 ext-cab LT on Nov 4. It was given a build date of 2/11 but some how got screwed up in the computer,so they say.All along I have been seeing reports about delays on the 2500's no matter which truck (gm or chevy).I am going to wait till March to see if things change.I kinda got myself worked up on getting this truck if it's the last thing I do.The 800 is a joke,they really pay those people to make you think they care.I did e-mail them and got the same"sorry for the delay,there has been a delay on 2500's."These delays can't be helping the share holders.I'll be updating with any progress,as I know we are no the only ones waiting.
In comparison, I believe the Ford V-10 is a $200 or $300 option and the Power Stroke is about a $4,400 option. That's $4,000 difference. I may be slightly off on the numbers but I believe I'm close. Plus, I don't trust Ford automatic trannys. I know lots of people personally who have had problems with them and they're expensive to rebuild. In the Four Wheeler truck tests, all of the Ford testers thought it didn't live up to the power ratings put out by Ford. Dyno tests backed this up. Maybe it was just a "bad" engine or maybe the Calif. emissions suck all the power out of them, but I'm not sold on anything with the Super Dutys, other than the fact that the Power Stroke put up some impressive torque numbers.
The Dodge is a non-competitor to me because they don't make a crew cab
Its not to late to buy a dodge and actully enjoy the a new truck, before you turn old and grey!
1.)Borla
2.)Flowmaster
My 5.9l doesn't need anymore power, unlike your lifeless 6.0l---without airraid.
P.S thanks for the new nikname, I love it.
Do you really need more than that for a pleasure truck? Oh, sorry, I forgot -- this is a sports truck, with sport tires and everything. In that case, why not compare to sports cars?
Our '98 3000GT VR4 = 320hp
That's about the same as your 'enhanced' 6.0l chevy, right? Of course, the VR4 can get 20mpg in the city (although it usually gets more like 18) and is faster 0-60 than a new vette. It even handles better in bad weather than your truck(fantastic AWD system) :-)
Of course, when it comes to doing 'real-truck' stuff, it falls short of your 6.0l for now -- keep up the mods, though, and that disparity will get less and less obvious.
The real issue -- if you want a sports car, buy a sports car. If you want a truck, buy a truck. If you want both, buy both -- most truck/sportscar hybrids fall short in both areas.
Thought you said chevy's 6.0l got 3
Isn't stock power enough. Doesn't it live up to your expectations?
One post will do, bro.