Yeah. The old "it don't fit" doesn't seem credible, when you consider that it fits in the Grand Cherokee and the Durango (doesn't that share the front end with the Dakota).

And what about that 4.7? It puts out the same power that it did back in the 90s. Back in '99, the GC with the HO 4.7 was actually pretty quick. Now the 4.0V6 is more powerful, in spite of not having any sort of VVT that I've seen. No wonder DC is working on a new V6....

 

Or push more for a 6.0L Colorado

 

The 6.0 Colorado has been canned. Too much torque.

 

I would definitely be interested in a 5.3L Colorado. Those little trucks look pretty nice and with a nice V8, they would indeed haul ***!

 

If the V8 Zeta Impala is too expensive, then I would definitely be interested in a 5.3L Colorado.

 

As in, the chassis, suspension, drivetrain, etc., would need strengthening, and it's not worth it for the small volumes?

Or they don't want to sell a small pickup with that much torque?

 

The LS2 is abit too much for what the rear end is rated for.

 

Ahh, damn. We're already limited by a crappy rear in the truck?

 

Agh! Come on!

We're talking about funneling over 400 horsepower and 400 lbs/ft of torque through a vehicle that will in theory weigh about as much as a loaded current Mustang GT, but has 40% or less of it's weight over the rear wheels.

How on earth is that going to do anyone any good unless you plan on just sitting there spinning tire trying to move from a stop sign..... on dry pavement? Anyone actually feel comfortable going 160 mph in a vehicle a mere 67" wide and just about as tall with a unaerodynamic front..... and non-crosswind-friendly slab sides? The big trucks have weight to help with high speed wind stability, and more crosswind friendly sides (don't have to worry about carving more interior space).

A 325 horse, 330-350 lbs/ft torque, 3500 pound 5.3 Colorado should be about as quick as a 390+ horse, 450 lbs/ft torque, 4800 pound Lightning.

IMO, a 6.0 in that thing would at the least, be overkill in something that thin, tall, nose heavy.

 

I get what you're saying, I was just more or less worried about having to rely on the aftermarket for those of us who do want more power. Yes I realize that I am in the extreme minority, and even more so in the minority of wanting that size of an engine in that small of a truck. But it would be sort of comparable to the F-body with it's glass jaw 10-bolt rear in that we would need to rely on the aftermarket to supply the enthusiasts with more hard core parts. But, I suppose that's what the aftermarket is there for in the first place.

If there's one thing GM and Ford should create an alliance on, it's rear ends. We should just let Ford design them.

 

I really don't think the issue is a F-body-like "glass" axle. Colorado's axle is pretty durable. It's probally more an issue akin to strapping an F18 engine to the back of a Mini.

 

Or a 747 engine onto a MN12 T-bird?

 

Which part of the drivetrain then would you say is the weak link?

 

That's why an AWD or 4WD version would kick ***!

 

as long as its built for the 5.3L engine, that means that any LSx engine will fit and swappers can make it happen