Results 31 to 40 of 49
Thread: Chevy HP/Torq
03-29-2014, 03:24 PM #31
I wish I had a dollar every time the dealership service manager told a customer with a new vehicle " we never had that problem !"
sure the engines of the past had some problems from time to time . the fix was usually minor. with these AFM 5.3L engines there trash before 100,000miles.
the 5.7L engines 1990's era are still running most that do the proper maint. get over 200,000miles and no major motor work , not so with what we have today ...
It is too bad that these auto makers have to deal with the internet . where owners that got the shaft are free to tell their horror stories. I'm scared ...
03-30-2014, 07:03 PM #32
The reality for me is the truck has ample HP and tq. If I pulled daily considerable weight I would go to a HD truck. Manufacturers of today have gotten caught up in a arms race. Who has the most, biggest and best. We have ourselves to blame for that. As for vehicles of the past...... Most of us remember a day when we were happy to get 100,000 miles out of a engine. I think its remarkable considering the amount of wear and tear any engine takes. That doesn't mean I'm happy with manufacturers failures and lack of initiative to fix them with out these sites help for them to acknowledge the problem.
I'm just saying we are more inclined to post our problems then to announce our satisfaction. No manufacturer is immune to this phenomenon.
2008 Purple LTZ Crew Cab
03-30-2014, 10:33 PM #33
These engines do meet the needs of most consumers, but that is not a very good standard to judge things. The OEM's are technically in an "arms race" with each other, but the problem is, they are not making any appreciable progress, just seem to be moving side to side. They are just making things more complicated and more prone to problems. True, there was a time when we were happy to get 100,000 miles out of our engines, but we did not have the quality of motor oils we have today either. And I was able to tweak out 250,000 miles from a 1974 GM 400 small block with no problem. Still ran fine when we junked the car.
If they were to make the progress on engines that they have made in other drivetrain components, then we probably would not be having this discussion. There are several areas where the OEM's have really stepped up to the plate and done a great job. Transmissions especially. On engines, quite another story. But, the same is true even for commercial heavy diesels. When one compares the engines of around 15 years ago to today's heavy diesels, it is a no contest. The older engines win every time when one factors in the life cycle maintenance costs and downtime. This is why I took advantage of a loophole in both the IRS and EPA regulations and put a factory rebuilt Detroit 12.7L engine from 2000 into a brand new from the factory 2013 Freightliner class 8 semi truck. I have fewer maintenance issues, lower maintenance costs, better performance than many of the 14L and 15L new engines, and excellent fuel economy. And substantial weight savings over the new stuff.
I have no problem giving the OEM's credit when it is due, but I am also not afraid to bring up the times when they drop the ball. Brand loyalty means zip to me, and I am not going to be a "team player" when it comes to lowering my standards to claim that what the OEM is putting out is the greatest thing ever devised by man, when we know it isn't.Hey there, VA, what do ya' say? How many vets did you kill today?
03-31-2014, 07:29 AM #34
sold vehicle to a friend, he totaled it the first year...
these manufactures are designing these vehicles to fail at the 100,000 mile area. they also drop part coverage after about 10 years. from what I have been reading the average vehicle age is about 8 years.The aftermarket part suppliers are doing a very good amount of business, also the non dealership repair shops..
03-31-2014, 02:31 PM #35
The 2010 and up L96 makes 90% of its 380 lb.ft. at 2,000 rpm. Surely Cowpie will find something inferior here.
Last edited by paracutin; 03-31-2014 at 03:23 PM.2012 Silverado 1500 LT 4X4
2003 Suburban LT 2500 6.0L
2004 2500HD Crew Cab LT 4x4 6.0L - SOLD
bryane liked this post03-31-2014, 04:01 PM #36
Here we go! Really, is this what this thread is coming to. I guess the smart ones are the auto manufacturers than. Charge 40 to 60k for a truck and have it fall apart after 100 thousand miles. Sell 400 to 500 thousand a year and still get return business from the same people.
HORSE POWER AND TORQUE. Not, my 1983 hasx 400xxxxxx and never did any thing to it. I had a 1986 and it didn't make it past the curb. "TOUCHE"
Lets see hear, why does it take chevy to meet it's torque at a higher rev then ford.
Forgive my sarcasm
paracutin liked this post03-31-2014, 08:48 PM #37
Well, jcat stated if I need 340 lb of torque continuously i should be using something bigger. Well, my semi produces 1850 lb of torque at 1200 rpm, and I use all of it several times a day, each and every day the truck operates. I don't find it unreasonable to use all of the available torque an engine produces on a regular basis.
Yep, still do find it inferior. Especially when the previous small blocks produced 100% of their torque below 3000 RPM. Your link showed the 6.0 will not reach max torque till 4000 rpm. I suppose some like to make their engine scream pulling a load, but that really is not my style. I still prefer an engine to produce it's max torque at a lower rpm level. The small blocks did it in the past, why not now?
03-31-2014, 10:03 PM #38
These are light duty trucks not semis. Any light duty truck that makes 90% of its max torque below 2k is pretty darn good. I think maybe your daily driver should be an International CTX.
03-31-2014, 10:21 PM #39
That's true, but still the fact remains, the small blocks of days gone by generated their max torque at substantially lower RPM than those of today. Reread the article. 90% of max torque is available at 2000 rpm, not below it. And considering it only took the 327 small block another 800 rpm to generate max torque compared to it taking the engines of today another 2000 rpm, speaks volumes about which direction we are going, and it ain't forward.
03-31-2014, 10:51 PM #40
Tags for this Thread