By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
http://www.gmpowertrain.com/engines_cartruck/vortec_silver/53_torque.htm
The "meat" of the torque range is the same all the way across.
Jcmdie's experience is the only one I've heard like that. I know many owners of 5.3s and I've driven a couple. everyone will snap your neck with very little throttle off of idle. and the passing speed is plain scary.
I would trade my Vortec 350 for a 5.3 in heartbeat.
I feel your view is a little skewed. Honestly, what if you didn't have a tach in your truck or the rental unit? Would you have really known or cared what rpms your were at? Not likely, I say. Could you feel hesitation because you were waiting for an upshift? If you are waiting for an upshift, its becuz you were accelerating!
Point is, even though you're used to the Cummins, it is giving you high horsepower in the 1500-2500 rpm range (due to the high torque). The new GM engines, as all gas engines do, run higher rpms because thats where their high horsepower is at...thats why gas trucks have different auto trannies than diesel trucks.
So maybe its the diesel tranny you like??
-the view from a gasoline driver
The newer engines (of all models) should last longer than any of their predecssors. Just look at how far material sciences and tribology (lubrication engineering) has gone the past 3 or 4 years.
Then why did Ford raise its torque and horsepower ratings on their 5.4, but lower the rpm at where these peaks occur?
As for the tach, neither of my F150s (302 V8 in both) had one. But knowing the formula for calculation, I knew that my rpm were approximately mph x 100 in 1st gear. They absolutely died at around 4400 or so, and were pretty gutless at that point. The Silverado I had as a loaner was driven identically as to how I drove my Cummins. But it just seemed as though the computer was set to make sure the transmission and throttle always got the engine up to higher rpm. I agree with lariat1's comment in #54.
The reason I brought up the wear issue is the same reason you refute it. The advances in metallurgy and lubrication also have resulted in engine parts with MUCH tighter tolerances than ever before. Thirty years ago, a gas-station mechanic could fix your engine by making a new part fit 99%, and it worked just fine. Today, you almost have to have a dealer repeatedly adjust a repaired part until it hits that exact tolerance necessary, otherwise you have rough idle, poor throttle response, low fuel economy, etc. Add in these "extended maintenance intervals", and Joe Average will probably drive a truck for 100,000 miles without changing anything but the oil every 7500 miles, because he doesn't realize his coolant is shot, the trans fluid is cooked, the wires are hanging by a thread, and the engine is sludged. Meanwhile, "old-style" engines like my Cummins, the Ford 460, the Chevy 350 and 454, or anything similar will continue on indefinitely with simple rebuilding/overhauls.
kcram
Co-Host - Smart Shopper & FWI Conferences
edmunds.com Town Hall
I can say that when the pedal is too the metal, the 5.3 will outpull the 5.4. (slightly) Magazine tests have documented that.
Maybe thats why GM made their torque curves flat?
I still don't understand yours and Lariats suggestions (re: post 54). If you have 90% of your peak torque from idle to redline...exactly where is this 'meat' from the torque curve? It is meat the entire bandwidth!
the tradeoff between the 5.4 and the 5.3 is that the 5.4 gives ~10% more torque from idle to 2500 and the 5.3 gives ~5-10% more torque from 2500 on up.
idle to 2500 is your normal driving range in a half ton.
2500 to redline is your towing rpm range (in a half ton, locked out O/d).
make any sense of my gibberish?
On the wear and tear issue, i don't see where you're coming from. Elaborate on an example of a 'repaired part' you mentioned.
I thought we were talking about basic engine wear: Rings and bearings. haven't seen any ill-effects of worn components outside the engine on any vehicles i've been in contact with. interesting point, though.
By the way, I have driven one of the new trucks with the Allison tranny. VERY sweet. truck I drove had the 8.1. The transmission behind any of the big 3's diesel engines would be a dream set up for RV'ers and heavy towers. I hope they put one behind the Cummins.
- Tim
We agree that the majority of driving is accomplished at lower rpm - I'll even give you 3000 instead of 2500. But how many of the trucks sold today haul much more than the owner? Half-tons are continually "softened" to attract the car crowd because they make more moeny for the manufacturer. Most of the people buying extended cab half-tons would have been buying an LTD or Caprice station wagon 20 years ago. These same people also have a sports sedan of some kind in the garage, and they asked for a wider powerband, not the hardcore truckers. Why does a semi have a redline of 2100 and 15 gears, instead of a "wide" high-rpm powerband and 7 gears? Because it's more efficient to keep the engine within a narrow rpm range and let the trans multiply or reduce the power.
Friend of my dad is an old-school mechanic - Chester. Chet is one of those guys who doesn't read or write too well, but knows cars and trucks inside and out, any make, any model. He's worked on everything from econoboxes to Peterbilts. I watched that man drop and swap a transmission, start to finish, by himself in a couple of hours without opening a manual. He made parts fit, and made them work. If he was working on an 84 Pontiac, but he could only find the parts for an 86, he made it work. When I bought my police car at the state auction over 10 years ago, it failed emissions here in NJ. Until Chester went under the hood. That engine was a throttle-body fuel injected 302 - he did not open any parts boxes, just had a couple of screwdrivers. Fiddles around at the throttle body for a few minutes, tests the emissions, does it again, then a third time - presto - green zone.
He hates working on new engines. Everything now is computer controlled, everything has to be exact, no trial and error, no fiddling, no Ford parts on a Chevy engine (because sometimes they worked better).
Heck, you can't even fake a fanbelt any more - how many old stories are out there about a guy and his gal driving along, a belt snaps, and it's her pantyhose to the rescue? Can't do that with those serpentine belts.
As for the Ally, I can't wait for that to show up in the new HD Ram, regardless of what diesel Dodge ends up using.
kcram
Co-Host - Smart Shopper & FWI Conferences
edmunds.com Town Hall
Let the fun begin
Ryan
Go to gmpowertrain.com and you can take a look at the torque and hp curves for all GM engines
per the 5.4 vs 5.3, look up the Truck Trend February '99 issue. The Chevrolet w/1000 lbs outran the Ford w/1000 lbs by .1 seconds. Empty, the Ford outran the Chevy. The GM had a 3.73 rear end and the Ford had a 3.55, but the transmission ratios kinda nuetralized them.
I think the big-rig analogy is not an apples to apples arguement. I would say the argument to the advantage of the wide powerband is because you ARE limited by your transmission, and this type of engine overcomes that. I'm not sure what you mean by efficiency, but fuel efficiency is a big plus these days for Ford and GM, despite their very different engines.
But this gets away from my point, which I don't think I have gotten across yet:
The GM philosophy is power across the board. This "meat" of the powerband: The entire powerband is meat. I'm talking 300+ ftlbs of torque at any speed, any rpm. Take into account your experience is with the 4.8, which is a step down in the torque department. I have driven the 4.8 and the 5.3 with the same gear ratio. The only difference I noticed was a major difference--low end torque. the 5.3 had a lot more than the 4.8.
So you're saying the 5.3 needs to operate at lower rpms, while I'm saying it doesn't need to because it has power where competitors engines don't. That high end torque translates into horsepower advantage.
Which brings me to the other point: You are correct, the majority of the market is now the commuter rather than the worker. And the GM engines to operate more sportier.
BUT, for the 1/2 tons that ARE used to work and pull, tow: who has the advantage? I say GM, because 1/2 ton trucks do not pull below 2500 rpms (3rd gear cruising). the higher (and lower peaked) torque of the 5.4 is felt at low speeds and town driving, while on the highway and cruising, the 5.3 seems stronger.
My experience is from pulling a 3500 lb boat with a 2000 model 5.3. running 70 mph @ 2500 rpms, the engine didn't even flinch at hills.
I understand your story about Chet. My dad is the same, he used to be able to make anything run. Now days, he is at the mercy of the dealer to do just about everything.
Still doesn't explain to me how you think longevity is going to be reduced by higher RPM engines???????
My opinions on high rpm engines comes from the experiences of econoboxes. Small four (and sometimes three) cylinder engines, winding out to 6000, 7000, even 8000 rpm. There's no power to get the car to move otherwise. The 3-cyl Chevy/Geo Metro came with a 4.39 axle ratio in order to make its 55 horsepower useful. These cars usually have nothing left after the first owners trades in. Want a larger-vehicle example? Ford Taurus SHO. Yamaha-designed V6, with a no-accessory redline of 10,000. You can't give that car away now. A 1996 SHO can't bring $10K on a trade, even in excellent condition, and that is a loaded luxury/performance vehicle (albeit a Taurus), that was originally sold at premium prices. My 1996 Ram is worth $17K, still half its original sticker.
These engines all experience various upper cylinder maladies that, because of their design, are prohibitively expensive to repair, and these cars are usually left for dead at side-of-the-road used car lots.
Who will be right about the GM 4.8/5.3/6.0, which are all based on the current Corvette 5.7? Don't know. GM has to hope they won't suffer the early teething problems of the Ford Triton engines, nor any longevity problems 6-7 years down the road.
We agree, trucks are supposed to be designed to WORK, even if the buyer is a commuter buying a truck as a fad item. Let's also agree, in spite of the manufacturers' marketing efforts to get more of those commuters and families to buy trucks, that I'm wrong on this one. The 6.0 in the new HD Silverado/Sierra will be the most telling.
kcram
Co-Host - Smart Shopper & FWI Conferences
edmunds.com Town Hall
Kcram, using Edmunds own used car values the SHO actually fairs very well against the Generals Caprice and Supercharged Bonneville. I realize the SHO may have had a higher sticker(probably on par with a S/C Bonneville) but you're smart enough to know that nobody paid close to that. In '97 I could have bought a $28000 SHO for $22,000. Bought the Cobra instead.
Maybe the lack of interested buyers in American Sedans is the culprit rather than engine technology? Last I heard the before mentioned GM cars were using pushrods. BTW the last SHO's were V8's.
Even though I hate to admit it, the higher revving Japanese mid to full size cars(and trucks) All use the evil OHC multi valve technology and we have to agree that the longevity on those vehicles is as good if not better than anything.
You probably were upset when they got rid of flatheads and went to OHV. LOL!!!
My last observation on this relates to your and Cdean's outlook on things. It seems one person is up to date and welcomes technology while one shuns it and wishes for "the good old days". If the good old boys took the time to use the new diagnostic equipment they'd find it much easier to reference codes to trouble shoot than try to make a Ford part work on a Chevy.
I know this subject was awile ago but some of us "real" truck owners were working and using our trucks. Ever wonder why guys like me buy Fords over Chevy? Quality and bottom line.
I was a Chevy fan growing up and it took years for me to realize that Ford was simply better when my repair budget was better focused.
No fuzzy math there!!
1993 Ford F150, 302 V8 - rough idle, not shifting smoothly, bad fuel economy. Dealer charged me $130 ($65 an hour for 2 hours) of diagnostic testing. Know what was wrong? Number 8 spark plug died. But because of all the computers, everything else went south too because they were trying to compensate. Tech changes spark plug in about 5 minutes, truck runs perfectly again. And I'm not THAT old - 36, but yeah, 20 years ago, a dead spark plug didn't cause transmission problems, and any gas station attendant could tell you what was wrong.
I'm not against new technology. I just want it applied properly. Don't tell me I'm not able to shift a transfer case lever on the floor by only giving me a bank of pushbuttons. Give me an engine compartment that allows me to do routine maintenance if I choose, not one covered in huge black plastic shrouds that rarely go back on straight. Make ABS work correctly in a truck, instead of a system that kicks in when I don't want it and least expect it. I actually prefer common-rail fuel systems on diesels to improve their functionality. Heck, I just want headlights that show up on the pavement in front of me, not on the overhead highway signs...
As for the SHO doing well against other Americans, that's all well and good, but compare its resale percentage against its European or Asian competition. Major nosedive when you make that comparison.
kcram
Co-Host - Smart Shopper & FWI Conferences
edmunds.com Town Hall
'89-92 manual tranny SHO jellybean Taurus',
reason for limiter to 7,000 rpm was to prevent
accessory brackets from breaking....
Long life of ultra high RPM engines can now be
same as low RPM engines due to low friction
material composites. Check materials now being
used in new 4.2 GM in-line sixes, very impressive,
also use of 6061-T6 AL alloy throughout,
it is the new materials being used. Remember
your metallurgy classes. Class 30 cast iron
was favorite by all Auto makers... The Taurus
SHO had cast iron VULCAN Ford block, YAMAHA
did the heads. The vehicle had equal half shafts,
ideal in a FWD vehicle. Car and Driver in
1989 call the Sho, "FASTEST AND BEST PRODUCTION
CAR IN WORLD"..imagine a jelly bean shaped
vehicle with DOHC V6 AND 4 DOORS smoking a
LX MUSTANG 5.0 up to 140 mph. I know a few
engineers that have them. they are not worth
much now, but were expensive. Also remember the
Buick GN 3.8 Turbo brutish muscle car that needed
drive with hefty forarms to operate MACHO shifter,
I drove one, G forces on acceleration will pin
you to seat, lost of THRUST...
opps sorry, off topic, DODGE, FORD, CHEVY =
NO ONE WINS!! All very great, no loyality here
all have problems, ALLL OF THEMMM!!! uh yea...
Kcram, you seem like a mechanical type person. I've had that experience you're talking about and it was very recent. My feeling is on any motor I do the cheap stuff myself and if it don't fix it I'll pay the diagnostic fee. BTW, I think you got screwed. They charge 1 hour here to do the STAR test for about $60.
Two examples this year, both on 302 EFI Broncos. The one with 125,000 miles started pinging. I did plugs, wires, adjusted timing still no fix. Took it to Ford, They ran a SBCS(?) test for $60 and found 2 injectors clogged. Bought a SET of injectors from a Ford site on the net for $99 and it's fixed. Total outlay less than $250. Ford wants $150 A PIECE for their injectors!!!
2nd example '95 with 180,000+ miles started running rough. Started with plugs and wires and THAT FIXED IT!!! What's funny is I HATE carbs. Injection is actually easier for me.
I agree on the American vs. import values. But that's on everything, even trucks. My point was the SHO was no worse than other American sedans.
That's OK, I respect the elderly and their fading memory.LOL!!
What I find to be the case far too often nowadays is that mechanics don't know jack about trouble shooting because they've come to depend so much on computers. All the time I hear from this site about people who went back to the dealer for problems, but the dealer plugs in the equipment, doesn't get any trouble codes, and tells them 'if the computer says nothin's wrong then nothin's wrong.' Only they find out later that what WAS wrong has only gotten worse cause nobody was able to use their common sense and say 'if it's making this noise, then this might be the problem.' But unfortunately, fewer and fewer mechanics nowadays are able to diagnose a car's problems by ear or by feel. That's why I love to listen to 'Car Talk' with Klick and Klack(If you don't know what I'm talkin about email me for the address to their site.) In short, computers are useful, but only if they help us think, not do our thinking for us.
a 3.0L vulcan block with the YAMAHA DOHC heads,
according to Design News mag. They had a full
technical article on it. Damn it!! I left
the mag at the company i had quit. I drove the
'89 model. Only had manual tranny. I thought
it was awesome. I read FORD did not have
a FWD auto tranny that would survive the
high RPM motor. Chevy came out with a DOHC
Lumina that was no match for SHO taurus. remember that. I hope you agree 1000% that the
SHOGUN engine in those years had a vulcan cast
iron block from the mudduck 3.0L engine in
'88 TAURUS that editor DON SHERMAN of CAR AND
DRIVER drove to 116 mph with a 0-60 time of
10.0 sec. I bought my wife one of these
indigo blue Taurus DL 3.0 cars. I got rid of that
lemonaide of a jelly bean car 2 years later.
there is not enough memory in this townhall
to list all the problems i had with that car,
FORD had over 2000 ECO's on that car (ENGINEERING
CHANGE ORDERS). Anyway, i agree with you that
my memory is fading and appreciate the enlightment. Hope your SHOGUN engine failures
are minimal and that you truly realize the
spectacular performance of the CHEVY SILVERADO
SS with 6.0L, 395 HP super FORD killer truck..
I will admit the Vulcan block was considered and Yamaha said, "NO F'ing WAY!!" or something like that. Wager????
wager, I may end up buying you a bucket of
CRABS at Crabby Bob's here in Riverside, Ca.
I am close to you. I'am in Moreno Vally next to
March AFB, about 45 min from Palm Springs.
I do remember reading that the FORD SVT people put
a SHOGUN engine in a '90's Ranger, performance
was stunning but the engine, tranny & electronics
were over $10,000. I would have liked to have
owned such a vehicle. I think FORD did that due
to "TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURBO" GMC S10 Syclone.
hmmmmm...remember the ROBOCOP movies...they used
these charcoal grey colored Taurus's, sounded
like they had V8's in them, I don't know, probably
sound effects man. The Scorpio (German Taurus)
had a 2.9L V6. Then they put a DOHC version of
2.9L with 225 HP, I don't think they imported it.
Scorpio was real wheel drive, cost over $40,000.
If price were closer to $15,000, Lincoln Mercury might have sold more. I think Scorpio was better car...at least CAR & DRIVER liked it.
I don't really see how the comparison to the cars you speak of applies to this situation. In this truck situation we're talking about a redline of 5500 ( I think) which is only 500 more than the previous generation Vortec and is the same or close to the same as the Ford engines. ANy Ford owner jump in with the redline correction for me.
I think you are saying the new GM engines have to operate at a higher RPM range. I disagree by saying they are ABLE to, but 80% driving conditions-they do not.
-Ford engine in O/D turns around 2000 rpms cruising.
-GM engines in o/d turn around 2000 rpms cruising.
-Ford engines towing in 3rd gear will turn around 2500 rpms.
-GM engines in 3rd gear will turn around 2500 rpms.
Give or take 200 rpms for gearing.
I don't see either engine series spending a majority of their life span anywhere above 3500, under normal driving acceleration.
Towing medium loads with the GM engine, acceleration can run up to 4500 rpms, but cruising usually stays in the mid 2K rpm range. If you are around 40 mph and you floor it, it will jump into 2nd gear and run up to 65 mph or so in 2nd gear and redline...if you hold it to the floor. That is the biggest difference I've seen between the new GM engines and the old and competitors.
And by the way, the jump from 40 to 65 will put you back in your seat, even when towing.
Trying to see your opinion, I don't know if the 4.8 is a bit of a dog or not, I have driven one, but only for a couple of miles. I have towed with 5.3 for a about 200 miles and I thought the engine felt powerful right from idle. From a stop sign the truck would jump forward with only slight throttle, seeming far more responsive than my 350. And the real advantages to the engine is at highway speed. the truck I drove had a 3.42 gear.
Compare the 4.8 you drove with your ol' 302. Maybe you are expecting the small block to move a truck off of idle like your diesel does, which no ones gas engine does. Do you really think your 302 had more power in lower or higher rpms than the 4.8? I would bet the 4.8 had more power in all ranges.
Robocop! LMAO!! Always wanted a SUX 6000!!!
Last comment on the SHO. I actually worked for a Ford dealer from '84ish to 90 as an F&I manager so I was privy to a lot of cool info. You are one of the few people that realize that SHO was short for "SHOGUN" not Super High Output which seems to be the accepted answer when asked what SHO stands for. My '93 SHO was an Auto(YUK!) and would do an honest 140mph between LA and Vegas and was a true "Sleeper"
To make a long story short I made the owner over a million dollars a year with me getting 11% plus interest "juice". Ford had 3 warranties; Base, Plus and Total. I would ONLY sell the Total. Didn't care if it was for an Escort or Lincoln. Greedy ba$t!r& owner wanted me to sell the Base warranty that barely covered anything. I refused and have never been happier being out of that fugged up business!
Roc
http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/otf0999.html
My last Truck was a 1994 Chevy Silverado 1500 Z71. When I got rid of it it had 185,000 miles on it and I only had the tranny rebuilt once. That was one hell of a truck!
I bought a 2000 Ford F-150 XLT 4x4 5.4L this time. I've got 18,000+ miles on it so far no problems.
Ford and Chevy(GM) both make good solid trucks. It just depends on your own personal preference. I like the look of the new Ford's and the price was good. It handles great and tows just as much as my 1994 Chevy, if not more. I just didn't care for the price tag or looks of the new Chevrolet. I think the last model lineup of the Z71's looked alot better. I was hoping for a little bolder of a change in the Chevy lineup instead of rounding all the corners of the last series and slight updates to the fascia and interior.
Ryan
Silverado 2500 HD vs. Ford F-250 SD vs. Dodge 2500???
#1 of 4 Which of the three? by koontzy Jan 14, 2001 (02:56 pm)
Soon i will be starting work for a Company called Bowen..They do construction,build bridges,lay pipe, concrete and all kind of other stuff..So I have to get a truck that can do the job...I have looked into these three trucks. but still cant decide...here some of the condition for my job..
1.heavy duty hauling..
2.mud-They are building a bride right now and they are down on a bank and to get up they have to drive up different slopes which are muddy as hell..
3.hauling- will be hauling preety good sized loads.... these and other things will be smething I will have ot put up with..Including snow....
Any opinions of these trucks wuld be appreciated..
thx
Ryan