Chevy has the weakest V8
09-03-2003, 01:00 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Chevy has the weakest V8
I Remember back in 1999 when the new Silverado came out it had the most powerful V8 in it's class in a 1500 model
Now in 2004 the Silverado 1500 has the weakest optional V8 you can get in a 1500 compared to everyone elses biggest 1500 V8 trucks.
Silverado
5.3L - 295HP/330tq
Dodge Ram
5.7L - 345HP/380tq
Ford F150
5.4L - 300HP/365tq
Nissan Titan
5.6L - 305HP/379tq
Chevy is now getting beat in both HP and tq.
Does anyone have any info on the next generation of Silverado 1500 V8s?? the Gen IV V8s come out in '05 right?
Now in 2004 the Silverado 1500 has the weakest optional V8 you can get in a 1500 compared to everyone elses biggest 1500 V8 trucks.
Silverado
5.3L - 295HP/330tq
Dodge Ram
5.7L - 345HP/380tq
Ford F150
5.4L - 300HP/365tq
Nissan Titan
5.6L - 305HP/379tq
Chevy is now getting beat in both HP and tq.
Does anyone have any info on the next generation of Silverado 1500 V8s?? the Gen IV V8s come out in '05 right?
09-03-2003, 01:37 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
Not for long...new V8's in 05. Expect around a 35-30HP bumpon each engine....if not more...the 6.0L will reach 400HP. They will also be more efficiant than the engines they replace because they will use DoD.
09-03-2003, 02:04 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 1,215
Typically, this is the way it always is. Each manufactorer tries to one up the others when they release their new products. Its interesting to look at the hp gap from base V8 to optional V8 of each make. Chevy excells in that respect.
09-03-2003, 02:59 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,650
Not to mention, paper ratings are different than real world performance, which is where the Gen IIIs own (IMO).
Last year sometime, C&D did a comparo with the new Ram (pre-Hemi) with the 4.7 L SOHC, the Ford F150 with the optional 5.4L (260 hp/350 lb ft, I think), the Silverado with the 4.8L (275hp/295 lb-ft or something), and the Tundra V8. All were extended cab, short box trucks.
The Tundra was quickest by a bit, but the Chevy kicked the Ford's and Dodge's butts, even when loaded with 1000 lb payload. With the 5.3 vs. the Ford 5.4 vs the Dodge 5.9, it would have been sick.
Granted, the new Hemi shouldn't have too much trouble with the 5.3, but like stated above, truck power numbers go back and forth every few years. The sick part is that all GM would need to do is offer the 6.0 in the half tons, and they would have no problem at all beating the hemi (see my post in the Lounge about the Silverado SS vs the Hemi 1500 Ram, focusing on the performance of the engines - not the merits of the SS).
Last year sometime, C&D did a comparo with the new Ram (pre-Hemi) with the 4.7 L SOHC, the Ford F150 with the optional 5.4L (260 hp/350 lb ft, I think), the Silverado with the 4.8L (275hp/295 lb-ft or something), and the Tundra V8. All were extended cab, short box trucks.
The Tundra was quickest by a bit, but the Chevy kicked the Ford's and Dodge's butts, even when loaded with 1000 lb payload. With the 5.3 vs. the Ford 5.4 vs the Dodge 5.9, it would have been sick.
Granted, the new Hemi shouldn't have too much trouble with the 5.3, but like stated above, truck power numbers go back and forth every few years. The sick part is that all GM would need to do is offer the 6.0 in the half tons, and they would have no problem at all beating the hemi (see my post in the Lounge about the Silverado SS vs the Hemi 1500 Ram, focusing on the performance of the engines - not the merits of the SS).
09-03-2003, 03:17 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
Yep, this is little different than the constant leap-frogging in the early-mid 90s. Ford entered the decade with a sizable lead, lost it to the Dodge Magnum line-up, and then GM came along with the Vortecs in '96 and pretty much held the lead until this year. It's my opinion the GM's the only one that didn't take a step backwards - I personally think that Ford's pushrod engines were superior to their mod motors, and Dodge's move to positioning the 4.7 L OHC motor as the high-end engine during the introduction of the Ram was pretty frickin' dumb.
Seems to me that with all the competition and the high level of base technology being employeed by all the players in this market, you'll see each company taking the lead for a shorter period of time.
What I'm curious to see is how each manufacturer deals with transmission issues in their 1/2-ton trucks; seems like this is the biggest weak link in anyone's powertrain right now. 300+ HP in an engine that'll likely run 200,000 miles is great, but it kinda sucks when the likelihood of a transmission reach 100,000 miles under heavy use is something sub-50%.
Seems to me that with all the competition and the high level of base technology being employeed by all the players in this market, you'll see each company taking the lead for a shorter period of time.
What I'm curious to see is how each manufacturer deals with transmission issues in their 1/2-ton trucks; seems like this is the biggest weak link in anyone's powertrain right now. 300+ HP in an engine that'll likely run 200,000 miles is great, but it kinda sucks when the likelihood of a transmission reach 100,000 miles under heavy use is something sub-50%.
09-03-2003, 03:51 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,650
Originally posted by Eric Bryant
It's my opinion the GM's the only one that didn't take a step backwards - I personally think that Ford's pushrod engines were superior to their mod motors, and Dodge's move to positioning the 4.7 L OHC motor as the high-end engine during the introduction of the Ram was pretty frickin' dumb.
It's my opinion the GM's the only one that didn't take a step backwards - I personally think that Ford's pushrod engines were superior to their mod motors, and Dodge's move to positioning the 4.7 L OHC motor as the high-end engine during the introduction of the Ram was pretty frickin' dumb.
09-03-2003, 04:55 PM
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Originally posted by Sixer-Bird
Typically, this is the way it always is. Each manufactorer tries to one up the others when they release their new products. Its interesting to look at the hp gap from base V8 to optional V8 of each make. Chevy excells in that respect.
Typically, this is the way it always is. Each manufactorer tries to one up the others when they release their new products. Its interesting to look at the hp gap from base V8 to optional V8 of each make. Chevy excells in that respect.
Silverado
4.8L - 285HP/295tq
Dodge Ram
4.7L - 240HP/300tq
Ford F-150
4.6L - 231HP/293tq
Toyota Tundra -Nissan has no small V8
4.7L - 245HP/315tq
09-03-2003, 09:42 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
I'm sure Chevy powertrain will have no trouble matching or beating the competition as the new model rolls around in a few years. They won't have to worry about Nissan or Toyota's 300+ Hp offerings since they'll sell in lower volumes. They'll just have to worry about Ford/Dodge.
Does anyone know when the F-150's will switch over to the new 3 valve 4.6's? All i hear about is the 3v 5.4's.
Does anyone know when the F-150's will switch over to the new 3 valve 4.6's? All i hear about is the 3v 5.4's.
09-03-2003, 09:47 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
I'm sure Chevy powertrain will have no trouble matching or beating the competition as the new model rolls around in a few years. They won't have to worry about Nissan or Toyota's 300+ Hp offerings since they'll sell in lower volumes.
I'm sure Chevy powertrain will have no trouble matching or beating the competition as the new model rolls around in a few years. They won't have to worry about Nissan or Toyota's 300+ Hp offerings since they'll sell in lower volumes.
Here kitty kitty kitty...
***WHACK***
Back to the old drawing board, Osaka-san.
.
09-04-2003, 10:31 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
I think PacerX was implying that the Japanese won't be able to keep up, which given Nissan's track record with their V6s may not exactly be a correct assumption. Their truck motor has competitive displacement (i.e. they're not trying to go at this with too small of an engine), so I think they'll be able to extract more power than they're currently offering.
If their transmission doesn't puke, though, expect that little Dana 44 to start giving them some problems. It's not the strongest axle in the segment, to say the least.
If their transmission doesn't puke, though, expect that little Dana 44 to start giving them some problems. It's not the strongest axle in the segment, to say the least.
09-04-2003, 10:58 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: OR
Posts: 2,368
actually, looking thru the website, I don't see the 1500HD anymore..
but looks like the 2500HD crew cabs also go for about $30k..
wasn't the 1500HD just a 2500 rebadged?
anyways, as others have said, its just manufacturers leapfrogging each other.. I bet GM has a few tricks up their sleeve in the near future.
but looks like the 2500HD crew cabs also go for about $30k..
wasn't the 1500HD just a 2500 rebadged?
anyways, as others have said, its just manufacturers leapfrogging each other.. I bet GM has a few tricks up their sleeve in the near future.
09-04-2003, 01:11 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Originally posted by Eric Bryant
I think PacerX was implying that the Japanese won't be able to keep up, which given Nissan's track record with their V6s may not exactly be a correct assumption. Their truck motor has competitive displacement (i.e. they're not trying to go at this with too small of an engine), so I think they'll be able to extract more power than they're currently offering.
I think PacerX was implying that the Japanese won't be able to keep up, which given Nissan's track record with their V6s may not exactly be a correct assumption. Their truck motor has competitive displacement (i.e. they're not trying to go at this with too small of an engine), so I think they'll be able to extract more power than they're currently offering.
I personally don't take the new *** trucks seriously. The powerplants sound nice (on paper since they're unproven), but where are the options? They are severly limiting themselves. Where's a HD, 2500, 3500, Diesal, Dually, etc... version/option? They just have one version with one engine, whereas the big 3 have dozens of configurations and multiple engines to choose from.
09-04-2003, 01:45 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: OR
Posts: 2,368
Well, they are trying to first break into the full sized light truck market right now... Once they get a good standing in that field, I bet they'll grow into the heavier duty areas..
or even perhaps not any time soon, since I bet a full sized light truck would satisfy most people's needs.
or even perhaps not any time soon, since I bet a full sized light truck would satisfy most people's needs.
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
I see the Osaka-san reference now.
I personally don't take the new *** trucks seriously. The powerplants sound nice (on paper since they're unproven), but where are the options? They are severly limiting themselves. Where's a HD, 2500, 3500, Diesal, Dually, etc... version/option? They just have one version with one engine, whereas the big 3 have dozens of configurations and multiple engines to choose from.
I see the Osaka-san reference now.
I personally don't take the new *** trucks seriously. The powerplants sound nice (on paper since they're unproven), but where are the options? They are severly limiting themselves. Where's a HD, 2500, 3500, Diesal, Dually, etc... version/option? They just have one version with one engine, whereas the big 3 have dozens of configurations and multiple engines to choose from.