New truck

Anything off-topic

Moderators: Eric@PPE, James B., flyingpolarbear, Dev

endo
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: Portland/Beaverton, OR; Truck: 2004 GMC ECSB 4WD
Contact:

Post by endo »

Great looking truck, does NOT look like its mileage.

In my dumb opinion...

Red looks great, don't change it!

If you're going 6L80, go 5.3DOD at the same time, they make more mileage in the new trucks than the 4.8. Snag the motor+trans from a wrecked 09+ Silverado XFE (probably not easy the find at the moment, but won't be bad in 2 years).

Original motor? Trans (yeah right)?

endo
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: Portland/Beaverton, OR; Truck: 2004 GMC ECSB 4WD
Contact:

Post by endo »

Also...craigslist has more stock Silverado 16s and 17s with new OEM tires on them than a big horse can ****. Typically $400. The OEM tires tend to be crap, but some are decent. Current truck has 285/70R17 BFG A/Ts on Tahoe Z71 wheels that were picked up from CL for 350. Just keep lurking it, and you can find whatever you might want.

Speeder
Posts: 10776
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: 2015 Tahoe 2WD 5.3L 6L80E, 2008 Colorado work beater, 2003 Dodge Dakota pro-touring project

Post by Speeder »

Endo - my mother's 2008 ext cab 2WD with the 4.8L has been seeing 22MPG, what does the DOD 5.3 get?

I'm still waiting to see how well DOD works with some miles, and what the failure modes are, before I start looking at them.

The 'ol lady wants that Kandy Kobalt Blue like what Blown4x4 put on his Chevelle. I appreciate the suggestions, but we do have our own vision for the truck already.

saturnstyl
Posts: 3213
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 1998 8:12 pm
Location: In a pineapple under the sea.

Post by saturnstyl »

I vote 2.8 with TBIâ„¢. Less internal friction due to smaller and fewer pistons should produce phenomenal fuel economy.

Speeder
Posts: 10776
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: 2015 Tahoe 2WD 5.3L 6L80E, 2008 Colorado work beater, 2003 Dodge Dakota pro-touring project

Post by Speeder »

saturnstyl wrote:I vote 2.8 with TBIâ„¢. Less internal friction due to smaller and fewer pistons should produce phenomenal fuel economy.
HAH! I'd rather put one of these Chrysler engines in!

Image

saturnstyl
Posts: 3213
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 1998 8:12 pm
Location: In a pineapple under the sea.

Post by saturnstyl »

I know you would. I mean, why do all that work to come up with the perfect engine when someone else has already done it for you?

Speeder
Posts: 10776
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: 2015 Tahoe 2WD 5.3L 6L80E, 2008 Colorado work beater, 2003 Dodge Dakota pro-touring project

Post by Speeder »

saturnstyl wrote:Ooooooo my hero!!!

Image

Speeder
Posts: 10776
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: 2015 Tahoe 2WD 5.3L 6L80E, 2008 Colorado work beater, 2003 Dodge Dakota pro-touring project

Post by Speeder »

On a more serious note, I'm kinda worried because right now I'm considering putting a General tire on the truck. The General Grabber is rating as the top tire on Tire Rack, and even Tire Rack's own review is very good. Plus, it's made in the USA.

What We Liked: Great road manners along with excellent wet traction
What We'd Improve: We always want more of a good thing

The Revos that are very popular here don't show as an option there, so there's no comparing the two tires. In fact, after checking with the Bridgestone site, Revos are no longer an option at all.

Also looking at Pirelli Scorpions and Continental CrossContact LX.

Goodyears are never an option.

Any other opinions? The use of the vehicle will be 90 percent highway usage, an occasional trip into the mud and crud, and wintertime snow/ice use. Tire size will be 255/70R16s, this is the same diameter as the stock 2WD tires but an inch wider. The stock 235/75R16s are 29.8 inches diameter and 9.3 inches wide, 255/70R16s are 30.0 inches diameter and 10.3 inches wide. EFI Live says no size conflict.

saturnstyl
Posts: 3213
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 1998 8:12 pm
Location: In a pineapple under the sea.

Post by saturnstyl »

Michelin LTX M/S, or A/T2.

Pro
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 1996 8:12 pm
Location: because of natural gas leaks

Post by Pro »

saturnstyl wrote:I vote 2.8 with TBIâ„¢. Less internal friction due to smaller and fewer pistons should produce phenomenal fuel economy.
ill go along with this statement

endo
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: Portland/Beaverton, OR; Truck: 2004 GMC ECSB 4WD
Contact:

Post by endo »

Speeder wrote:Endo - my mother's 2008 ext cab 2WD with the 4.8L has been seeing 22MPG, what does the DOD 5.3 get?

I'm still waiting to see how well DOD works with some miles, and what the failure modes are, before I start looking at them.

The 'ol lady wants that Kandy Kobalt Blue like what Blown4x4 put on his Chevelle. I appreciate the suggestions, but we do have our own vision for the truck already.
09 Mileage numbers are 14/19 for 4.8L, 14/20 for 5.3L+DOD. XFE gets 15/21 w/ 5.3L+DOD+6 speed+aero tweaks+weight savings, but it's still a 5200lb CCSB.

Obviously make it the way you want though.

Makoi
Posts: 4165
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:18 am
Location: 2010 GMC Yukon Denali

Post by Makoi »

Speeder wrote:The Revos that are very popular here don't show as an option there, so there's no comparing the two tires. In fact, after checking with the Bridgestone site, Revos are no longer an option at all.

Also looking at Pirelli Scorpions and Continental CrossContact LX.
What are you seeing wrong with the Revos? And you're link is going to the wrong tire from Bridgestone. These are the Dueler Revos here;

http://www.bridgestonetire.com/tiresele ... uctID=1055

I've had the Scorpions too. They were okay.

Post Reply