Yeah i just checked. Not sure why they dropped it. Low sales i guess. I see the american manufacturers are dropping most of their cars again. Not sure why they didnt learn their lesson last time fuel spiked and no one wanted their trucks and suvs anymore. I guess time will tell how it works out.
Half-ton pickup redux
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
Ashful
Minister of Fire
You might be right, but I can’t find a listing of the 160 hp 4.3L with a 5-speed manual, only the 200 hp version. I also seem to remember “Vortec” being on the valve covers or plastic intake cover, which is what I think they called that later sequential injection version.
It’s also entirely possible I owned a 1996 K1500... but memory tells me it was a 1995.
thats what everyone thinks about the suvs around here too but its pretty simple if you are stopping half the weight you stop in half the distance. the best vehicle i ever had was the escort, had big lug snows and a manual trans, no nanny crap. how fast you can stop in the snow when you cant see much in front your hood is alot more important that how fast you can accelerate. fwd is way better, its trying to keep you in line when you put on the gas, awd or 4wd will try to push you the wrong way. you have to leave it on ad that wears stuff out and uses gas. the w bodies, and the wifes car arent quite as good they are a bit heavier, and i get all seasons. they are almost as good with driving out if state snows are a pain.
the 89 tbi i had was a 350, 5sd, f44. like a 1500 hd but the gears were under 3.10. it got 22 mpg though if i took it on the road. it pulled my old camper fine though. wasent going to win any races though. the ave and yukon pull stuff down the hwy alot bettter
the 89 tbi i had was a 350, 5sd, f44. like a 1500 hd but the gears were under 3.10. it got 22 mpg though if i took it on the road. it pulled my old camper fine though. wasent going to win any races though. the ave and yukon pull stuff down the hwy alot bettter
8
again i only use mine for towing and work but if the real world mileage is even within two mpg which i think it would be, it would be worth having the 5.3. i think the 4.8 and all those they all get get with in a couple. and if resale matters would be the more desirable. i think weight has more to do with it, like the quad cab long bed would get less. and the std cab short bed 2wd would get the most mpg, especially if talking more local type driving
again i only use mine for towing and work but if the real world mileage is even within two mpg which i think it would be, it would be worth having the 5.3. i think the 4.8 and all those they all get get with in a couple. and if resale matters would be the more desirable. i think weight has more to do with it, like the quad cab long bed would get less. and the std cab short bed 2wd would get the most mpg, especially if talking more local type driving
Mine is a 93 2WD Ext cab with a 5 Speed manual ,its 160 HP . Runs fine around town ,no powerhouse for sure. I sure the new ones would runs rings around it with better MPG to boot
You are absolutly correct about the weight. The problem with that argument is that our escape weighs the same as your w platform car so that argument doesnt hold true. And if you think a good awd system will pull you in any way you dont want when you hit the gas you have obviously never driven one.
Now as far as using more gas and wearing stuff out that simply isnt true. Our escape is awd which means it is always on it sends power where it needs to go. And it gets better mpg than the w body stuff. And there are lots of awd vehicles that regularly go well over 200,000 with no issues.
It would only be worth having the 5.3 if you need it. And 2 mpg can add up quick when you put on allot of miles
I guess your right about the research. Found out some % of late model full size GMs starting in 2014 have been developing vibrations that cant easily be fixed or causes pinpointed. Some have it,most dont. A good long test drive is one way to weed em out.
i have driven aton, the car based awds are most times fwd anyway, but they are random feeling, on curves and stuff in the snow and the nannies fight you. all my chevy trucks have it too, leave it in two because of that. probably 80 percent of my commute is curves before the roads get plowed in the morning
my w body coupes get 30-32 rural roads(crap gas) with stops and 35-36 with crap gas hwy 38 real gas. dont see any suv getting that real world. they are low 3ks for weight most suvs ive read about are a k more or more
my w body coupes get 30-32 rural roads(crap gas) with stops and 35-36 with crap gas hwy 38 real gas. dont see any suv getting that real world. they are low 3ks for weight most suvs ive read about are a k more or more
i think the tbis got the best mileage, that was the case for me, the vortecs with the junk poppets were the worst. they had a mpfi retrofit kit though,that gave me 3 more but still four less than the 5.3
No your chevy trucks are not awd if you can put it in 2wd what you have is not awd it is auto 4wd. That is absolutly not the same thing. Go drive a real modern awd then get back to me. Yes ours and many others are front wheel drive to start with but they transfer power to what ever wheel needs it and away from any that are slipping. And you dont feel a thing it just keeps going in a straight line.
Now as far as weight look up 2015 escape or any similar stuff. Most are around 3500. I looked up allot of w body stuff and most are guess what right around 3500.
Also none of them are rated anywhere near the meilage you are claiming they are much closer to the ratings of the small unibody suvs. So what w body are you talking about that magically exceeds the mpg ratings by that much? I know none that i have driven come anywhere near that.
Last edited:
I guess I don't know what I'm talking about you know some people just always have to be right
ive had 5 w bodies they have all gotten way better mileage than the mfg ratings and everyone I know that has had an suv has gotten way worse real world driving especially the people who have the more city trips. normally say 22 city and high 20s hwy if you ask an honest person. a ton of people around that have them probably 3 to 1 or 4, if you count trucks compared to cars. but not many care about the mileage.
the difference in a couple mpg is negligible to me even if you figure the commute I have which is way more than most, 300 miles a week at 20 mpg( and 2.80 gas price) is 42, 18 is 46, 22 is 38
ive had 5 w bodies they have all gotten way better mileage than the mfg ratings and everyone I know that has had an suv has gotten way worse real world driving especially the people who have the more city trips. normally say 22 city and high 20s hwy if you ask an honest person. a ton of people around that have them probably 3 to 1 or 4, if you count trucks compared to cars. but not many care about the mileage.
the difference in a couple mpg is negligible to me even if you figure the commute I have which is way more than most, 300 miles a week at 20 mpg( and 2.80 gas price) is 42, 18 is 46, 22 is 38
If you think auto 4wd is the same as awd no you dont know what you are talking about. We had an impala mid 2000s and it was a nice car no problems with it we got low 20s around town and in the mountains mid to upper 20s highway. Just sliggtly better than tge escape. Unfortunately we had it less than a year and hit a deer totaling it. But it was a good car. A little boring to drive and quite a bit of body roll but very comfortable.
Stelcom66
Minister of Fire
View attachment 226125 View attachment 226126 I sure like my lowly 2000 Toyota Echo, I only paid $5600 for it back in 2002 with 26,000 miles on it and I’ve only done oil changes to it (53 times so far with good synthetic oil and good synthetic filters too) and replaced the serpentine belt twice. Oh, and I put new plugs in it a few times too. It’s been hit hard twice and I hit a deer with it and it looks like hell and is a local legend in my town of 326 but I am determined to drive it into the ground as I said I would when the seller handed me the keys to it. It’s been my daily driver for 16 years now and I hope to get another 5 out of it. I have some other vehicles that are in new condition but they’re too nice to drive lol....
Edit....oops. I guess this is a truck thread isn’t it?
Thanks for posting the photos - was curious when you said it's a local legend in your town! (I'd like to live in a small town like that) Although it's a truck thread your post is significant since some have (and I hope to at some point) an economical, older (for me preferably manual trans.) car when a truck isn't necessary. I'd probably just have collision on one vehicle to keep insurance costs down. That's cool you've had a vehicle that long, and may for a few more years to come.
Stelcom66
Minister of Fire
I wish I found a truck like that. I believe 2005 was the last year for the manual transmission in full size GM pickups, and they were only available in regular cab work truck trim. I do like the older Silverado I recently bought although it's an automatic. If I won the lottery I'd consider a new one with the 4.3 V6 given today's power rating. I believe my 2002 5.3 V8 is rated at the same horsepower as the new V6.
My brother gave me the 93 with the 5Sp. He didnt want to go in for new brake lines and a few other repairs to keep it on the road,and i didnt want to see him scrap it for the sake of a few repairs.
Im looking at 2014s to 2016s with relatively low mileage for around 20 to 25k . While i like standard shift the knees cant take it much longer so im ok with a 6 or 8 speed AT. I posted a link a few pages back to a 2014 getting 32 MPG on a trip.Thats fantastic if its possible.
Stelcom66
Minister of Fire
Yes, today's automatics help achieve better MPGs than the manuals did. Fueleconomy.gov actually shows that the automatics in full size trucks get slightly better MPGs than the manuals.
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
All of that MPG for the full size SUV's goes out the window when you daily rock those things up huge hills. I live in a very hilly area. Everything gets much worse avg MPG because of it.
blacktail
Minister of Fire
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
You need to research more about vehicle dynamics. Good AWD and 4WD are amazing systems with snow and handling.
FWD is by all measure, the worst handling.
In this neck of the woods..if you don't have AWD or 4WD, you don't get home with significant accumulation.
Well front wheel drive is above rwd and possibly even with 4wd but awd will run circles around them all
You dont have to tell me we live ontop of a ridge with a montain infront and to the right of us and a lower ridge wrapping the other two sides. Everything is up and down
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
On dry..awd and rwd always win for handling. For traction in snow...it really is vehicle dependant if awd or 4wd is better.
FWD wins at nothing. Bad handling in dry and marginal performance in snow..but..yes..better than rwd.
In most cases i agree with you but i have had some fwd that did better in snow than allot of 4wd. But you are right it is absolutly vehicle dependant. There are tons of variables but a good awd system will win every time.
- Status