Everyone seems to say that GM is getting rid of the 4.8L V8. I feel that this is/was a mistake. I can think of 2 applications were this engine would have been perfect.

1) Colorado - 285HP 4.8L would have given GM an edge not only over the new high power 4.0L V6 trucks from Nissan and Toyota, but it also would have given the Colorado a more powerful V8 than Dodges H.O. 4.7L. This would also allow for V8 power while giving it enough marketable distance from the 5.3L Silverado.

2) H3 - the I5 will be good enough, but for the money most people expect V8 power.

3) LS4 & mid-lux - 4.8L seemed like it would have been a better displacement for the LS4 in FWD. Everyone says that the FWD trannys can't handle the torque of the 5.3L so then why not use a 4.8? it puts out almost the same HP (285 vs. 290-300) but a more FWD friendly 295tq. It would have lowered the HP per liter which seems to impress a lot of the automotive press

 

I may be wrong here but doesn't the 5.3 share either bore or stroke with the 5.7/6.0? I think that it is stroke and the 4.8 shares niether. Thus the 5.3 would share more in common with a higher production engine and so it would be less expensive.

 

Bore x Stroke in inches
4.8L = 3.78 x 3.27
5.3L = 3.78 x 3.62
6.0L = 4.00 x 3.62

4.8 & 5.3L are the same bore, different stroke, 6.0 & 5.3L are same stroke.

 

I have the 4.8L in my 2002 Tahoe LS. I absolutely love the little motor. Its got enough torque to pull the steep grades and gets decent highway mileage.

Those are the two main reasons I chose it over the 5.3L.

 

I guess since the Silverado is getting a 6.2L that is a fair trade for the loss of the 4.8L

 

It would be nice to see the 6.0 motor make its way into the 1500 series trucks.
The 4.8 would be nice to have though, but a 5.3 in the Colorado would be fine. It would also make the H3 killer. Add DoD and you have a pretty economical V8 pick up.

 

Take no prisoners! Kill the X-Runner with an LS2 Colorado! I see no good reason for GM to hold back.

 

People put more emphasis on Hp nowadays, with very little looking at tq figures and the Hp figures on the 4.8 and 5.3 are too close making the smaller motor seem somewhat redundant. That and tq is never a bad thing. If GM is so concerned with tq steer, they should evaluate their choice of drive wheels since i doubt a 4.8L will be any better off than a 5.3 in FWD applications.

Overall, i think it's a good move.

 

The 4.8 = 295tq vs 325tq in the LS4. That is closer to the 300tq that the Northstar makes, anymore torque than that and the tq managment just kill it.

The only reason I can see for making the LS4 a 5.3 instead of a 4.8 is so it could be later used in RWD applications at higher outputs. I guess it is cheaper to build one high output engine and choke it off in FWD applications with restrictive headers/intake/tq managment and let it loose in RWDs, than to build a perpose built FWD 4.8L & RWD 5.3L.

...also does anyone else think that a DoD 5.3L & A6 combo would get better milage than the current I5 & A4 setup in the Colorado?