Why I hate Chevy.

[DJB]

If the OHV pushrod design is really so close to the OHC, why don't we see it in F1, where the engines routinely see 20,000 rpm? Or why do all the motorcycle manufactuers (excluding HD...and HD's own VSRC lineup!) all use OHC? Why did Ford use it on their DOHC Indy motor in the 60's? Or the 427 SOHC? Because it is superior in almost every way. The older 2v Mods are not the best example of OHC, but the 3v and 4v variants sure are. They are producing great hp/ci, and do it with good emissions, and with far less exotica. How's that? Ever read exactly what GM has had to do to the LS series of motors to get them to perform like they do? Especially the Vette's 7l motor? The build sheet for that 7l reads like a bloody aftermarket catalog! How anyone can say that motor is more economical to build than ANY of the Mods is beyond me. Titanium, anyone? Have a good close look at any modern motorcycle engine and see what its all about...

[PolarBear]

If the OHV pushrod design is really so close to the OHC, why don't we see it in F1, where the engines routinely see 20,000 rpm? Or why do all the motorcycle manufactuers (excluding HD...and HD's own VSRC lineup!) all use OHC? Why did Ford use it on their DOHC Indy motor in the 60's? Or the 427 SOHC? Because it is superior in almost every way. The older 2v Mods are not the best example of OHC, but the 3v and 4v variants sure are. They are producing great hp/ci, and do it with good emissions, and with far less exotica. How's that? Ever read exactly what GM has had to do to the LS series of motors to get them to perform like they do? Especially the Vette's 7l motor? The build sheet for that 7l reads like a bloody aftermarket catalog! How anyone can say that motor is more economical to build than ANY of the Mods is beyond me. Titanium, anyone? Have a good close look at any modern motorcycle engine and see what its all about...

 

I understand the arguments being posted here- but I've got two bones to pick:

 

1) Many assume that an OHC engine design is superior. In a race car or a motorcycle, maybe- but the ability to spin @ 20,000 rpm's in a truck is moot.

 

2) Why wouldn't the LS series GM engines be cheaper to build? GM didn't have to retool their friggin' engine plants to build them- which was the point in the first place.

 

3) Yes, the 3V and 4V mods are finally getting competitive with antiquated tech OHV engines. It took how many years to get them to this point? Mind you, we're just talking competitive- they're still nowhere's near top of class- and for the amount of money spent on them, that's a crying shame.

 

No excuses- it was a lousy way to spend a few billion dollars.

[DJB]

I understand the arguments being posted here- but I've got two bones to pick:

 

1) Many assume that an OHC engine design is superior. In a race car or a motorcycle, maybe- but the ability to spin @ 20,000 rpm's in a truck is moot.

 

2) Why wouldn't the LS series GM engines be cheaper to build? GM didn't have to retool their friggin' engine plants to build them- which was the point in the first place.

 

3) Yes, the 3V and 4V mods are finally getting competitive with antiquated tech OHV engines. It took how many years to get them to this point? Mind you, we're just talking competitive- they're still nowhere's near top of class- and for the amount of money spent on them, that's a crying shame.

 

No excuses- it was a lousy way to spend a few billion dollars.

 

Well...let's look at velocity then, shall we? As in port velocity. To build low speed torque (which is kinda handy in a truck...), you need ports that aren't too big and have good velocity. A 4 valve head can do a few things for you, one of them is to give you superior flow numbers over a 2 valve, another is to give equal flow but better velocity. If you tune the 4 valve for torque it will be a stump puller. Ever ridden in a 5.3 LS GM truck? To get the power out of that motor it takes a healthy spin up the tach to get any action at all. 5.4 Ford? Right off idle it hits hard. And this is with a 3 valve head (2 intake valves, the same as a 4 valve head but tuned for torque). GM has to go to the 6 litre in the trucks to get into the same league as the 3 valve 5.4 for torque, and that motor still needs to spin before delivering good torque. Gas mileage is none too good in the 6 litre either. Same goes for the Hemi, although 5.7 litres helps a bit compared to the 5.3 GM for torque. The multi valve motor can put the same cfm numbers through the valves but at a higher velocity. To get the output the LS motors get, they sacrifice port velocity at lower rpm's and therefore low end torque. Drive one back to back against a 3 valve 5.4 and you'll understand.

 

As for GM not re-tooling for the LS engines, are you serious? IT IS A TOTALLY NEW MOTOR!! There is not one part from the old SBC motor shared with the LS series. Not one!!! It is far closer to Ford's old FE series engine in design than the SBC. IT IS NOT A SBC!! All new. Just like the Modular was all new. So they saved money by not re-tooling where...?

 

As for the third point, got to agree that until the 3 valve (for trucks anyway; comparing a 4.6 4 valve in a mustang to a 5.7 in a Camaro is apples to oranges. Displacement, anyone...? Still wasn't far behind considering it gave 1.1 litres...) the Mods didn't do it. All to do with a cylinder head that didn't breathe apprecably better than the 5.0 it replaced. As far as durability goes though, the Mod has proven pretty damn reliable overall. And in a vehicle more closely matched in weight to it's power output, not bad mileage either. The 2 valve 4.6 in the older trucks just had too much weight to pull around. The new F150 with the 3 valve 5.4 gets better mileage than what the 5.3 GM's are getting. I've talked to a lot of guys with both, and the F150 is pulling better numbers in a heavier truck. Sounds good to me...

Edited April 10, 2006 by DJB

[kenp77]

Well...let's look at velocity then, shall we? As in port velocity. To build low speed torque (which is kinda handy in a truck...), you need ports that aren't too big and have good velocity. A 4 valve head can do a few things for you, one of them is to give you superior flow numbers over a 2 valve, another is to give equal flow but better velocity. If you tune the 4 valve for torque it will be a stump puller. Ever ridden in a 5.3 LS GM truck? To get the power out of that motor it takes a healthy spin up the tach to get any action at all. 5.4 Ford? Right off idle it hits hard. And this is with a 3 valve head (2 intake valves, the same as a 4 valve head but tuned for torque). GM has to go to the 6 litre in the trucks to get into the same league as the 3 valve 5.4 for torque, and that motor still needs to spin before delivering good torque. Gas mileage is none too good in the 6 litre either. Same goes for the Hemi, although 5.7 litres helps a bit compared to the 5.3 GM for torque. The multi valve motor can put the same cfm numbers through the valves but at a higher velocity. To get the output the LS motors get, they sacrifice port velocity at lower rpm's and therefore low end torque. Drive one back to back against a 3 valve 5.4 and you'll understand.

 

As for GM not re-tooling for the LS engines, are you serious? IT IS A TOTALLY NEW MOTOR!! There is not one part from the old SBC motor shared with the LS series. Not one!!! It is far closer to Ford's old FE series engine in design than the SBC. IT IS NOT A SBC!! All new. Just like the Modular was all new. So they saved money by not re-tooling where...?

 

As for the third point, got to agree that until the 3 valve (for trucks anyway; comparing a 4.6 4 valve in a mustang to a 5.7 in a Camaro is apples to oranges. Displacement, anyone...? Still wasn't far behind considering it gave 1.1 litres...) the Mods didn't do it. All to do with a cylinder head that didn't breathe apprecably better than the 5.0 it replaced. As far as durability goes though, the Mod has proven pretty damn reliable overall. And in a vehicle more closely matched in weight to it's power output, not bad mileage either. The 2 valve 4.6 in the older trucks just had too much weight to pull around. The new F150 with the 3 valve 5.4 gets better mileage than what the 5.3 GM's are getting. I've talked to a lot of guys with both, and the F150 is pulling better numbers in a heavier truck. Sounds good to me...

DJB: You sound fairly knowlegeable on engines what is your take on the new toyo engine for the tundra a 5.7L 4V dual overhead cam??

[DJB]

Hey, credit where credit is due. If they've done their homework on that motor it should do quite well. I haven't had a real good look at all it's internals, but if it is tuned properly, with well matched gear ratios in the transmission it should be a great powertrain. A 4 valve can have an amazingly broad powerband with tricks like variable valve timing and variable length intake runners. Toyota does many things that I'm not too cracked up about, but they do produce a decent motor. This new 5.7 will probably be a good one.

 

Lets get all the brand bias out on the table. Good design is good design. Only a fool would say that the GM LS engines are not well designed engines. There are compromises made by choosing pushrods as there are with OHC. GM did a great job with the pushrod design. It's that simple. Arguably Dodge outdid them with the new Hemi. When you look closely at what GM had to do to make that design work though, you realize that it is a VERY optimized pushrod design. Beehive valve springs, super light retainers, rockers that are light years ahead of old SBC gear, etc.. Other than some piston slap issues, haven't really heard of too many problems with these motors. But, they don't have torque down low. The early Mods are not a good example of OHC. But the 3 valve is. Wonderful torque right where a truck needs it. And as much as the Titan is reviled on this board, people should go for a drive in one. It's 5.6 4 valve feels very similar to the Ford 5.4, although a little peakier. But it pulls hard all the way up the tach, unlike the GM 5.3. Point? As good as the GM pushrod motors are, the OHC mills are torquier down low. Drive them back to back with a load and you'll see.

 

Sorry for getting off topic. Torsion bar front ends on the pickups. They have weak ass crossmembers where they mount to the frame. At my place of employment (in Forestry), we use trucks fairly hard; offroad and on rough roads. We have a mix of GM, Ford, and Dodge trucks in the yard, and those damn GM's come in plenty with one side collapsed on the front end because the Torsion bar bends the weak little crossmember and pops right out!! Time for a tow-truck! Better make it a Ford so it will get there and back...

 

And don't even ask about the ball joints on the same trucks...

[PolarBear]

Well...let's look at velocity then, shall we? As in port velocity. To build low speed torque (which is kinda handy in a truck...), you need ports that aren't too big and have good velocity. A 4 valve head can do a few things for you, one of them is to give you superior flow numbers over a 2 valve, another is to give equal flow but better velocity. If you tune the 4 valve for torque it will be a stump puller. Ever ridden in a 5.3 LS GM truck? To get the power out of that motor it takes a healthy spin up the tach to get any action at all. 5.4 Ford? Right off idle it hits hard. And this is with a 3 valve head (2 intake valves, the same as a 4 valve head but tuned for torque). GM has to go to the 6 litre in the trucks to get into the same league as the 3 valve 5.4 for torque, and that motor still needs to spin before delivering good torque. Gas mileage is none too good in the 6 litre either. Same goes for the Hemi, although 5.7 litres helps a bit compared to the 5.3 GM for torque. The multi valve motor can put the same cfm numbers through the valves but at a higher velocity. To get the output the LS motors get, they sacrifice port velocity at lower rpm's and therefore low end torque. Drive one back to back against a 3 valve 5.4 and you'll understand.

 

As for GM not re-tooling for the LS engines, are you serious? IT IS A TOTALLY NEW MOTOR!! There is not one part from the old SBC motor shared with the LS series. Not one!!! It is far closer to Ford's old FE series engine in design than the SBC. IT IS NOT A SBC!! All new. Just like the Modular was all new. So they saved money by not re-tooling where...?

 

As for the third point, got to agree that until the 3 valve (for trucks anyway; comparing a 4.6 4 valve in a mustang to a 5.7 in a Camaro is apples to oranges. Displacement, anyone...? Still wasn't far behind considering it gave 1.1 litres...) the Mods didn't do it. All to do with a cylinder head that didn't breathe apprecably better than the 5.0 it replaced. As far as durability goes though, the Mod has proven pretty damn reliable overall. And in a vehicle more closely matched in weight to it's power output, not bad mileage either. The 2 valve 4.6 in the older trucks just had too much weight to pull around. The new F150 with the 3 valve 5.4 gets better mileage than what the 5.3 GM's are getting. I've talked to a lot of guys with both, and the F150 is pulling better numbers in a heavier truck. Sounds good to me...

 

In principle, we agree on more than we disagree. On paper the mod motors are superior- but I do drive both Chebbies and Fords- daily, and that's where my criticisms come from.

 

1. Between the transmission gearing and the "drive by wire" delay, the Ford is noticeably softer than the 5.3 or the 6.0 GM product off of the line. In a recent full-size SUV ride and drive (Chevy sponsored), the Expedition was very close to the new Tahoe in acceleration and cornering. Braking was actually superior. But... behind the wheel, the Expy felt sluggish. Subjective, I know- but very real to the customers that drive them. Passing maneuvers get especially tricky, while waiting for the transmission to decide what gear it's supposed to be in after you mash the pedal. on a two-lane road, it can be quite unnerving.

 

2. My comments about tooling- what I meant to say was GM could retool for the LS engines at a fraction of the cost Ford had to spend for the mods.

 

3. The mods reliability record hasn't exactly been golden. The 4.6 is a pretty sturdy piece, but the early 5.4's were..... ummm..... pieces. Cam sensors and launching spark plugs were noteable flaws- there were others. Fortunately, the 3V versions seem to have hit their paces.

 

4. A quick remark about gas mileage- a F150 5.4 will get, on the highway, about what a Chevy 5.3 gets in town. To date, the single most common complaint we get in service on the 5.4's relate to crappy gas mileage- 11-13 is about par for the course out here. Considering a SD with a V10 gets about that, it isn't anything to write home about. A 1/2T GM version will knock down 13-15 in town, 20ish on the highway- not shabby by comparison.

 

Before I sound like I'm anti-Ford, I want to clarify that I'm anything but. The F150 is a wonderful product..... a wonderful product still in search of the optimum drivetrain.

Edited April 11, 2006 by PolarBear

[630land]

Quote of "The Autoextremist" Peter D.

 

"Ford vs Chevy, who cares anymore? Toyota is cleaning both of them"

[kenp77]

In principle, we agree on more than we disagree. On paper the mod motors are superior- but I do drive both Chebbies and Fords- daily, and that's where my criticisms come from.

 

1. Between the transmission gearing and the "drive by wire" delay, the Ford is noticeably softer than the 5.3 or the 6.0 GM product off of the line. In a recent full-size SUV ride and drive (Chevy sponsored), the Expedition was very close to the new Tahoe in acceleration and cornering. Braking was actually superior. But... behind the wheel, the Expy felt sluggish. Subjective, I know- but very real to the customers that drive them. Passing maneuvers get especially tricky, while waiting for the transmission to decide what gear it's supposed to be in after you mash the pedal. on a two-lane road, it can be quite unnerving.

 

2. My comments about tooling- what I meant to say was GM could retool for the LS engines at a fraction of the cost Ford had to spend for the mods.

 

3. The mods reliability record hasn't exactly been golden. The 4.6 is a pretty sturdy piece, but the early 5.4's were..... ummm..... pieces. Cam sensors and launching spark plugs were noteable flaws- there were others. Fortunately, the 3V versions seem to have hit their paces.

 

4. A quick remark about gas mileage- a F150 5.4 will get, on the highway, about what a Chevy 5.3 gets in town. To date, the single most common complaint we get in service on the 5.4's relate to crappy gas mileage- 11-13 is about par for the course out here. Considering a SD with a V10 gets about that, it isn't anything to write home about. A 1/2T GM version will knock down 13-15 in town, 20ish on the highway- not shabby by comparison.

 

Before I sound like I'm anti-Ford, I want to clarify that I'm anything but. The F150 is a wonderful product..... a wonderful product still in search of the optimum drivetrain.

PB: Off topic a bit but do you knowhow the 06 powerstrokes are working out I have a friend with an 04 and he has juist lost his 3rd turbo not sure of the details but he is trying to get out from under it at 19K think the dealer is trying to help him but he is not sure he wants another one any ideas??? I think you know the dealer in Chehalis as we are just up the road a bit from you will ford help him much???Thanx

[06StangAwesomecar]

GM squeezes some pretty good torque and fuel economy numbers from their engines. Nothing wrong with that. The distribution of specific power (HP/L) for GM's OHV engines, vs. a sampling of Ford's OHV engines. GM actualy does a little better, in terms of HP/L, with its OHV designs. The data came from Ward's 2005 Light Vehicle Engines chart.

Other advantages: pushrod engines can be made light, like OHCs, using aluminum and magnesium. Pushrod engines don't need long timing belts or chains. They are not as tall as OHC designs, allowing for a lower center of mass, or a more wedge shaped vehicle profile.

Staying with OHVs makes good business sense for GM because the designs and tooling are mature.

GM's pushrods are not all primitive, and are getting more advanced, picking up many of the high-tech features. Cylinder de-activation is relatively simple and cheap with the OHV architecture--bleed oil pressure from valve lifters using a solenoid valve. Cylinder deactivation on a OHC design requires some complicated mechanics and electronics, such as BMW's throttle-less Valvetronic engine. The added complexity adds cost and reduces reliability. (Anyone seen a valve de-activation system from Ford yet?)

A few years ago GM showed the XV8 concept--a twin cam OHV engine. This design supports 3 valves per cylinder and variable cam phasing. The second cam rides over the lower cam, and is driven by a slave chain.

 

Some of this Courtesy of GM.com

[PolarBear]

PB: Off topic a bit but do you knowhow the 06 powerstrokes are working out I have a friend with an 04 and he has juist lost his 3rd turbo not sure of the details but he is trying to get out from under it at 19K think the dealer is trying to help him but he is not sure he wants another one any ideas??? I think you know the dealer in Chehalis as we are just up the road a bit from you will ford help him much???Thanx

 

He should have- or can get- the $2500 loyalty coupon. Combines with $2500 rebate, it works out to real money. If he has one of "those" 6.0's, I'd trade up for a '06. They've been pretty darned good- I haven't seen any serious issues.

[156n3rd]

Quote of "The Autoextremist" Peter D.

 

"Ford vs Chevy, who cares anymore? Toyota is cleaning both of them"

 

That's a good point. But I seriously doubt it's the end of U.S. brand dominance. I don't mean number one in sales, but for uniquely American pruducts, Toyota has never been able to compete with Mustang. It will be intersting to see what happens when the bog Toyo p/u gets on sale.

[PolarBear]

Quote of "The Autoextremist" Peter D.

 

"Ford vs Chevy, who cares anymore? Toyota is cleaning both of them"

 

Not in the world of big trucks that I live in.

[DJB]

1. Between the transmission gearing and the "drive by wire" delay, the Ford is noticeably softer than the 5.3 or the 6.0 GM product off of the line. In a recent full-size SUV ride and drive (Chevy sponsored), the Expedition was very close to the new Tahoe in acceleration and cornering. Braking was actually superior. But... behind the wheel, the Expy felt sluggish. Subjective, I know- but very real to the customers that drive them. Passing maneuvers get especially tricky, while waiting for the transmission to decide what gear it's supposed to be in after you mash the pedal. on a two-lane road, it can be quite unnerving.

 

2. My comments about tooling- what I meant to say was GM could retool for the LS engines at a fraction of the cost Ford had to spend for the mods.

 

4. A quick remark about gas mileage- a F150 5.4 will get, on the highway, about what a Chevy 5.3 gets in town. To date, the single most common complaint we get in service on the 5.4's relate to crappy gas mileage- 11-13 is about par for the course out here. Considering a SD with a V10 gets about that, it isn't anything to write home about. A 1/2T GM version will knock down 13-15 in town, 20ish on the highway- not shabby by comparison.

 

Sorry man, but any 5.3 GM I've driven has to have the piss wrung out of it to get moving. Especially with a load. Once they get up the tach a bit they go, but at 1500-2500 rpm...DEAD!! The 3 valve 5.4 pulls hard way lower. Maybe it 'feels' different to you, but I watch the speedo to tell me what the truck is doing...

 

I still fail to understand how both motors can be a clean sheet design, and yet GM somehow saves bigtime compared to Ford on the entire process from design through to production. Please explain that. I could see it if GM had just designed new heads and induction for the old block, but it is all new. Top to bottom.

 

Are you serious about the 5.4 3 valve for mileage? I'm not talking about the older 2 valve motor; that did get worse mileage than the 5.3 (although I know a number of 3/4 tons that were getting 18-20 on the highway; and yes, our gallons measure a little different than yours.). The new motor in the F150 is getting great mileage everywhere. I live in the highest concentration of lumber production in North America. Believe me, we see trucks around here. They get worked to death on some of the nastiest shit conditions you'll ever see. And all the guys with the new 5.4 3 valve (and again I'll stress, this is the new motor!) are saying it is pulling great numbers, better than the 5.3. Maybe they calibrate them different south of the border, but I don't know...

Edited April 12, 2006 by DJB

[PolarBear]

Sorry man, but any 5.3 GM I've driven has to have the piss wrung out of it to get moving. Especially with a load. Once they get up the tach a bit they go, but at 1500-2500 rpm...DEAD!! The 3 valve 5.4 pulls hard way lower. Maybe it 'feels' different to you, but I watch the speedo to tell me what the truck is doing...

 

I still fail to understand how both motors can be a clean sheet design, and yet GM somehow saves bigtime compared to Ford on the entire process from design through to production. Please explain that. I could see it if GM had just designed new heads and induction for the old block, but it is all new. Top to bottom.

 

Are you serious about the 5.4 3 valve for mileage? I'm not talking about the older 2 valve motor; that did get worse mileage than the 5.3 (although I know a number of 3/4 tons that were getting 18-20 on the highway; and yes, our gallons measure a little different than yours.). The new motor in the F150 is getting great mileage everywhere. I live in the highest concentration of lumber production in North America. Believe me, we see trucks around here. They get worked to death on some of the nastiest shit conditions you'll ever see. And all the guys with the new 5.4 3 valve (and again I'll stress, this is the new motor!) are saying it is pulling great numbers, better than the 5.3. Maybe they calibrate them different south of the border, but I don't know...

 

I can't explain your impressions of the 5.3, because 1) the transmission has much lower gearing in 1st (which explains why the 5.4's so sluggish out of the hole), and the throttle is set up for a more positive "tip in," which actually makes the GM's harder to control on snow/ice. I'm also wondering what axle ratio was on the Chevy(s) you drove. 3.42 is standard, and it can't pull a sick hooker out of bed with those gears. 4.10's work best with the 5.3.

 

I just got the keys to a new Lariat S/C 5.4, 4X4, with 3.73 LS and 20's, so we'll see how this works out. Initial impressions are similiar- still has that delay, soft throttle response off of rest, and a seriously annoying delay when you mash the throttle to pass someone (lot of driving on two-lane country roads here). Computer thingy's reading 11.8- but that's only 40 miles worth. The last one started out like that, and ended up at 13.8. Not terrible, but not great either. Last Silverado I had (5.3, Z71, 4X4, 4.10 gears with a Locker) knocked down 16.9 for 5k miles.

 

On the other side of the coin, the Ford is light-years ahead of the Chevy in interior features and sound insulation. It has a much more solid feel to it. Given my druthers, i'd like to see the 5.3 powertrain in a F150- seriously.

 

re: Tooling. Yes, the LS family was brand new, but they're still building a pushrod engine, and could keep a significant amount of their tooling and machinery. not true when you change from pushrod to OHC- you'll gut the whole plant and re-buy equipment. it's a lot more expensive to make a change like that.

 

edit: I didn't notice where you were from. Yeah, trucks get worked up there, and they're mostly Blue Ovals, as I recall (and yes, there's a reason for that). I'm wondering if altitude has some bearing on all this- you really are driving the trucks in a completely different surroundings than down here- both in usage and conditons.

Edited April 12, 2006 by PolarBear

[Roadrunner]

<<Now, they bought a dual cab Colorado. And my friend said that "yeah, and it's an expensive one too". Right there, he tipped his hand as usual, meaning that he can identify with the greatness and smartness that was made to purchase a Chevy because he has one too and that makes him look good too. Hogwash! >>

 

----

 

The Chevy Colorado just screams "cheap" and "unsafe" to me - the bed looks square and the cab looks small. That's just an exterior look. Who knows what an interior looks like.

I was unimpressed with the interior of a 1990s Chevy S-10, I wonder if they've improved it all? Nah.

 

The Silverado -- now that looks decent and sturdy.

[Roadrunner]

I know a 3800 V6 gets absolutely shitty mileage unless you're on the highway doing 65mph on cruise control.

 

This is true. Very, very sadly true.

[PolarBear]

"I know a 3800 V6 gets absolutely shitty mileage unless you're on the highway doing 65mph on cruise control."

 

Dunno what 3800's you were driving, but I've had 4 of them over the years in full-size Oldsmobile, Buick, and Chevy products. 17-19mpg in town and 30 on the road has been real consistent numbers across the board, and 65 isn't my highway cruising speed. That was even true in the wifes supercharged 3800 Riviera. What's crappy about that?

Edited April 17, 2006 by PolarBear

[hoss96racing]

PB: Off topic a bit but do you knowhow the 06 powerstrokes are working out I have a friend with an 04 and he has juist lost his 3rd turbo not sure of the details but he is trying to get out from under it at 19K think the dealer is trying to help him but he is not sure he wants another one any ideas??? I think you know the dealer in Chehalis as we are just up the road a bit from you will ford help him much???Thanx

 

do you know if the turbo is actually burning up or is it just freezing up... and were the replacement turbo's the originaly design or the updated one... they just came out with the updated one and they are supposed to take care of the freezing up turbo issue... my dad is waiting to get the updated turbo on his '03

[PolarBear]

do you know if the turbo is actually burning up or is it just freezing up... and were the replacement turbo's the originaly design or the updated one... they just came out with the updated one and they are supposed to take care of the freezing up turbo issue... my dad is waiting to get the updated turbo on his '03

 

Freezing up- generally because of a soot-related EGR issue. The updated turbo should handle this issue.

[kenp77]

Thanx guys I think the turbo failure is related to the egr his is still in the shop so maybe he is getting the updated equipment, he is not sure yet if he is goint to keep it or not and I am sure not going to make any recommendations to him this time????

[5-point-0L]

The Chevy Colorado just screams "cheap" and "unsafe" to me - the bed looks square and the cab looks small. That's just an exterior look. Who knows what an interior looks like.

I was unimpressed with the interior of a 1990s Chevy S-10, I wonder if they've improved it all? Nah.

 

The interior of the Colorado is awful--cheap plastic everywhere, as well as a guage layout that's not the greatest.

 

Then there's the annoyance of such things as having to push down the brake pedal to start the thing, the doors automatically locking when you put it in Park, and the day driving lights that are useless.

 

Unfortuneately there is really not a good, modern, cutting edge compact pickup made, the Ranger is well-made but ancient, but none of the manufacturers are willing to commit to building a compact truck as good as their fullsized models.

[PolarBear]

but none of the manufacturers are willing to commit to building a compact truck as good as their fullsized models.

 

True of passenger cars as well. Why is that- been true since forever.

[5-point-0L]

So very true...........They could build much, much better cars for virtually the same cost, but they just sell what will keep them in business.

 

 

One more thing about the earlier S10/Blazer interiors, they weren't so bad, roughly equivalent to the Rangers/Explorers from the '90s-early 2000s. Their placement of the radio and HVAC controls is a little odd, having it angled toward the driver. No other Chevy that I know of has that.....

[Evil95GT]

Ok, if this is the place to list what you hate, I'm game.

 

1) The lack of styling in today's vehicles - For the most part, I find the newcomers across the board to be bland, boring, and tasteless. In the last 10 years, I feel there's been a HUGE regression in styling. WTF happened to the days when cars were made to look menacing and aggressive, with fins, flares, and extreme visuals? The *only* corproation I feel is hitting the mark right now is DCX. One other exception would be the C6 Z06.

 

2) The 1996 change to modular motors by FoMoCo - I'm an absolute fanatic when it comes to pushrod motors. I like the fact that I can easily identify my parts, pick up replacement or performance parts without breaking the bank, and finish the task at hand without a "Cylinder head changing kit" :rolleyes". If this move was genuinely to "improve emissions", why do these cars run a total of SIX catalytic converters as compared to the 4 cats on earlier pushrod cars? Furthermore, Chevy ran 350 cubic inches for years. And Ford couldn't do it because of the inefficiency? Gimme a break. Complete and total BS. The 4.6L lacked the R&D required to make it comparable to its predecessor. Take a look at the 1996, 1997, and 1998 Mustang GT. Enough said. Not until 1999 did they get it right.

 

3) The abandonment of RWD cars - short of Daimler-Chrysler, who is catering to those folks who think that FWD sucks and wouldn't take one if it was free? Chevy made their Malibu and Monte FWD. Ford seems to want to unload their hot selling Panther platform (hello?). So where does one go if they're in the market for a V8 RWD? Let's see.........short of a Mustang, Camaro, or a Cadillac, Ford and GM slammed the door on themselves. DCX played it smart, and I feel they're going to win over alot of people by simply making it happen, and building cars that the people want.

 

This has been brought to you by Evil95GT..........owner of Mustangs, fanatic of RWD cars in general.

[156n3rd]

GM fucked up by ending the old RWD Impala. BUT, has Ford upgraded the CV/GM? No, as usual they are sleeping at the cash register. That old Impala was a moster and had to be profitable. The current RWD Fords are old old old. And you know GM will retrurn another RWD platofrm to the arena soon. DCX hasn't sold that many to law enforcement types yet, but there are loadsa of cabs out there (Desoto Cab in Las Vegas for one) that are rolling along just fine. One more thing. Who will get a better product to market as prices go up? Chevy is already selling Daewoo rejects and the Asian companies are bringing theirs in.