Newest Gallery Photos

  1. Chevy Truck Forum

    Welcome To GMTruckClub.com!

    The #1 Chevy Truck Forum Online

    Online since 2004, we're the #1 Chevy Truck & SUV user community. If you have any questions about your Chevy or GMC Truck, SUV or Crossover, or just want to connect with other GM owners and enthusiasts around the world, you've found the best place on the internet to do that.

    Join Today ~ It's Free

    Registering is Free and Easy! Do it today and we'll see you on the forums soon!

Chevy HP/Torq

Discussion in 'Chevy Silverado Forum (GMC Sierra)' started by bryane, Feb 25, 2014.

  1. j cat

    j cat Rockstar 4 Years 1000 Posts

    unfortunately for the auto manufacturers we have the internet, we have the forums, we have the bitch web sites where owners ,,, not stories of ,,,, I know a guy who knows somebody that had engine problems.

    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 ...
     
  2. bryane

    bryane New Member

    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.
     
  3. Cowpie

    Cowpie Member 1 Year 100 Posts

    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.
     
  4. j cat

    j cat Rockstar 4 Years 1000 Posts

    my 1983 GM V8 B body got 380,000 miles and I did not even remove the valve covers. @ 330,000mi I had the emission test done and the test station guy stated this has better HC readings than the new vehicles...

    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..
     
  5. paracutin

    paracutin Rockstar 100 Posts

    Last edited: Mar 31, 2014
  6. bryane

    bryane New Member


    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
     
  7. Cowpie

    Cowpie Member 1 Year 100 Posts


    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?
     
  8. paracutin

    paracutin Rockstar 100 Posts

    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.
     
  9. Cowpie

    Cowpie Member 1 Year 100 Posts

    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.
     
  10. squatchy

    squatchy Active Member 100 Posts

    Sorry op, but if you read through your thread you would see all the numbers that show your original inquiry was based on a false assumption, because Ford in fact has to be at THE SAME RPM range as GM to make max power.
     

Share This Page