Snow's 05 Silverado

Pages

96 posts / 0 new
Last post
jaeger
Offline
Joined: Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 12:00am
Snow's 05 Silverado

Snow,
Hope the winter has been good to you so far. How about an update on your 05 Silverado. I am very interested in a new crewcab truck for hunting and traveling. My old truck is a 2000 3/4ton crewcab LS with the vortec 454. I love the way the truck runs and rides but the 12-14mpg with a 26gal fuel tank means lots of stops on a trip. How has the 5300 held up for you and what kind of gas milage are you getting? Did you ever put a different tuning program in the truck?
thanks, jaeger

flagger
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:00am

JAEGER; I had a 03 heavy half crew with 6.0 that was thirsty all the time. I now have 05 crew with the 5.3 and love it. the 5.3 will eat the shorts out of the 6.0. i average 14 to 15 at 75 mph. if you have the time to drive 60 to 65 it will pull 19 to 20. i hooked a 28 ft camper on back when it was new and it pulled it fine without pulling its guts out but the mileage was only 6 mpg with a mild wind behind me. the truck was new then and now that it is broke in at 20,000 it pulls the camper and averages 10 to 11. I can't say enough about the 5.3 as it is a whole different truck than my 03 was.The only complaint is that I bought 1 year ago and can go buy now for $5000.00 less than what I paid back then. Makes you feel good when you get that monthly statemant for $683.00 and you still owe $31,000 on a truck that you can go out and buy now for $27,900. THANK YOU GM FOR MAKING THE WHOLE COUNTRY A GOODWRENCH EMPLOYEE.

jaeger
Offline
Joined: Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 12:00am

Thanks Flagger,
That's pretty much what I've heard from the folks that have the new 5300 Silverado. Did you ever try to reprogram yours? What size tires do you run and what ratio gears did you get with the truck? I've heard there is a lot of difference in the performance between the .410 and .373.

p.s. If you ever need a gun rack for your crew cab check out Cabellas, they have one that connects behind the front bucket seats and holds three long guns for $35.
jaeger

NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

Jeager,

New toy for xmas? same as the 05 I had the 06 is sweet,5300 v-8 and running 3:42gears.The GVW of the 1/2crew is 600lbs heavier(7000) than the 1/2e-cabs(6400) I normally run so I did notice a slight drop in mpg's.I'm running the new Hypertech3 in it on stage 2,extra 77hp is noticable and getting 16+ alot of which is city driving right now,also have a soft tonneau cover which helps minumize tailgate drag and also helps the mpg's.Did'nt change the tires either,I like the stock Bridgestone dullers 17"265's,quiet and good traction.

Hope all is well,

Later,

Snow

cumminsguy
Offline
Joined: Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:58am

That 3:42 rear end isn't going to be worth a crap if your pulling anything consistently.

NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

Why would you say that?,pulls just fine...remember the stock motor puts out 295hp and 335 net torq and not that I need the extra 77hp/torq with the chip,370hp is plenty to pull anything comfortably under 4000lb(even though the power train/truck is rated for 7k)

We're talking a 1/2 ton truck here,not a "stump puller" like a HD or 3500(1 ton)You can get get deeper gears if need be,3.42's are an option for folks like me that run around 80% of the time empty or hauling a small trailer,great gears for milage,lord know's we all need the savings at the pump.

cumminsguy
Offline
Joined: Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:58am

Thats why I put the word consistently in there, if your only pulling once in awhile they will be fine.

cumminsguy
Offline
Joined: Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:58am

Plus horsepower doesn't really mean much when it comes to pulling, its all about the torque.

NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

Right,335ft pds(std) is plenty with the added hp and extra 60ft pds from the chip,its more than enough...

jaeger
Offline
Joined: Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 12:00am

Snow,
Thanks for the update. Like you said in your note I'm looking for a truck to do my hunting and traveling, very little towing. Are there any other engine configurations I should consider? Do I give up fuel eficency if I add the off road package?
thanks, jaeger

NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

jaeger,

In the crew model,the LM7 5300 is your only option,get the Z71 package,gives you "flares" 17"wheels and 50mm shocks and skid plates plus a package discount so bottom line(price)is the same as a regular 4x4.The trailer package gives you the locking diff,make sure you get it...(G80)You'll be happy with the factory tires,if not the go with the BF KO's(285's) you will lose mpg's(2mpg) using these meats but gain greater traction.

vexilar9760
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:00am

I just purchased a 05 chevy extended cab Z71 with the tow package and with the aluminim heads and aluminum block that gives you 310 hp compared to 295hp on the cast. It has 4:10 gears. You dont want the 3:42 because they will shift all the time in heavy wind and pulling up hills. In nice weather i average 17 to 18.8 mpg at 70 mph. In cold weather i can get 13 to 14.5mph at 70 mph. I have put 4500 miles on the pickup so far.

StevePike's picture
StevePike
Offline
Joined: Friday, January 4, 2002 - 12:00am

Are you dropping 4 mpg from letting it warm up or some other reason in cold weather?

You can't aim a duck to death.

vexilar9760
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:00am

I do let my vehicle warm up but its just the cold weather that takes away the gas milage. I was not counting warm up time. I have a 01 and a 03 and they both lose gas milage in winter also.

parker503's picture
parker503
Offline
Joined: Monday, October 25, 2004 - 12:00am

I just bought a 99 GMC 3/4 ton. It has Firestone 265/75s on it and the 6.0 liter. I am in Grand Forks so it has been around 0-20 degrees out when im driving. I have only put about 3 tanks of gas through it but have gotten about 11-11.5 mpg. It has been mostly highway miles or hunting miles (45-55 on gravel roads). I was just wondering if this seems about right to you guys for mileage, i expected to get more like 14ish mpg. Any input would be appreciated, thanks!

flagger
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:00am

THE 6.0 IN MY 03 WAS ALWAYS 11 TO 12 ON THE HIGHWAY UNLESS YOU DROVE SLOW LIKE 55 TO 60. MY O5 HAS 3;42 REAR AND I WILL TELL YOU ONE THING IT PULLS A 28 FT CAMPER AT 3600 RPM'S AND HOLDS IT WITHOUT LUGGING THE ENGINE. I TRAVEL FOR WORK AND THE MILEAGE DIFFERENCE FROM THE 6.0 AND THE 5.3 WILL PAY FOR ITS SELF IN NO TIME. WE BETTER QUIT TALKING ABOUT MILEAGE AS THE ASS PUMPERS HERE IN JAMESTOWN WENT UP 10 CENTS TO 2.19. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH DOWN SHIFTING IN WIND OR WHATEVER. I JUST PUT B.F. GOODRICH ALTERRAINES ON AND WILL BE CURIOUS WHAT HAPPENS VERSE THE BRIDGESTONES THAT CAME ON IT. I KNOW I WON'T GET STUCK UNLESS I INTENTIONALLY TRY TO. I WILL ADD THIS COLD AIR HAS EFFECTED MY #'S ALSO.

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

Alright, I have to call B.S. on some of this, yet some is dead on. I don't post all that often but do a lot of reading and spend a large amount of time on a simular web site for trucks & SUVs so when I see BS its hard to resist.

1st, you can not get 77hp or ftlbs of torque just by adding a chip to a n/a (naturally asperated) engine. Only turboed and Supercharged vehicles will see these gains. your 5.3L on the highest performance setting (which you have to run 91-93 octane inorder to keep perdetonation from occuring) will only produce 18hp and 16ftlbs of torque and on the performance 2 mode is only good for 11hp and 10 ftlbs, no where near 77, if the sales man told you 77 he lied to you so you would spend $450 on a programmer!!

2nd, all the power in the world does you no good if it's not in a usable RPM range. That 295-310hp and 335-350ftlbs (depending on what sereies) is rated at 5200rpms and 4000rpms, which last time I checked I do very little of my driving at these RPMs! generally going down the hwy at 70mp will give you around 2000rpms in OD and 2800 in D(give or take 10% depending on gearing); thats a far cry from 4000rpms and not even within shouting distance of 5200rpms. you actually have about half of that advertised hp and tq when driving if its not to the floor board!

The 3.42s will tow 4k alright and will tow 7k but I wouldn't make a habit of doing it everyweekend and not on extended trips. A few trips to the lake each year it can do but it'll be real thirsty and you'll be working the crap outa it just to maintain 60mph. Also you'll be putting a lot of stress on your drivetrain with those tall gears, see trany failors!!

The mileage on the 5.3L is rated at 14-18 town; and 18-21 hwy; but in order to get that 18-21 you'll be driving with a tailwind, pushing the go pedal like you have an egg under it, and driving at a respectable 65mph!!When the vehicles are EPA rated they are put on a chassis dyno and ran through a variety of rpms and speeds, but has neglected wind, temp, frictional resistance of the road, and all other "REAL WORLD" apsects. I also got near 16mpg with my V10 ONCE but I don't go bragging about it being my average since it took a 15mph tail wind, me driving very resonsibly (65mph), no jackrabbit starts and a straight through 400 hwy miles with only two stops. No, my hwy average is more around 12-13 with my in town being sligthly less at 10-12, sad thing is as some one already stated the 6.0L chevy is a terrible gas hog, why??? nobody seems to know but they all get crappy mileage. The point is the 5.3L is the most fuel effecient engine that has respectable power but 18-21 is kinda wishfull thinking when it comes to most peoples driving habits.

Lastly if you had a 454 and do any moderate towing you'll be very, and I mean very dissappointed with a 5.3L. The reason is your 454 will lug along at 2500rpms and tow 6-8k with out any reasonable problem, that 5.3 will be at 3500-4000rpms just to try and do the same job. Also the suspension under your 3/4 will flatout handle the load better than any half ton no matter how overflated the manufactureres seem to make the tow ratings. Good luck on you pruchace but don't buy into all the HYPE, because most of it is just that, nothing more than inflated numbers that have no real world application, and every manufacture does it. If you think I picking on GM I can prove you wrong when Ford rates the "NEW" F150 for 9900 GVWR and my superduty is only rated for 8800, you tell me which one you'd feel safer hauling 4000lbs of rock in............. thats what I thought. Dodge is no better but since Ford and GM seem to be in a pissing match over numbers I just thought someone should set the record straight!! Sorry for the long winded post

NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

lund,

The 77hp(stage 2) (140hp stage 3) did'nt just appear,and i never listen to a salesman,I suggest you visit the Hypertech site and read it for yourself,and if it is smoke and mirrors the performance is noticable futher more GM has been tweaking their motors to get more hp and torq over the last few years because they can w/o over boring.Look at the Duramax 02-04 300hp,04-05 310hp,06 360,or how about the 6.0lit 300hp,last year 325hp and the hi-performance 6.0 is 390hp.Even the 5300,in 1999 the hp was 275hp,2000 to 2003 285hp,now 295hp and 310.My point is the "unharness'd power is there whether you want to believe the hype or not,we will see more on these programs I'm sure right or wrong its happening and folks reconize the benifit whether pulling a boat,5th wheel or skid steer I here the feedback and do not have any reason to doubt.

STROCKER
Offline
Joined: Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:50am

Lund, I agree 100% with your post. I owned a truck with the 3.42's and it was the biggest pouch I ever owned. As far as towing, get used to the tranny down shifting often. I now own a 3/4 ton with the 6 liter, and as stated earlier, it likes gas.

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

sorry, keep dreaming tim!! The diesels are the only ones that are able to increase power in significant gains and that is due to the forced induction (turbo). I've done the research and ran vehicles on the dyno, maybe you should invest in a custom tune and dyno run so you can quit posting B.S. By the way here are Hypertechs results of the 2005 5.3L HO (which is stated at the bottem of the page)

http://www.hypertech.com/get_dynochart.php?cid=85&vid=1431121&tp=jpg

Maybe you'd like to reverb you last statement of 77hp since I even had it wrong. Its only 12hp and 19ft lbs on the performance 1 tune and 6hp and 12ftlbs and performance 2 tune!! thats no where in the vacinity of 60ftlbs and 77 HP!!

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

oh, and by the way GM has been doing more than just computer tuning their vehicles, they've changed many internals, of course the tuning, the exhaust, the intake, the fuel injection, and the largeset gains have came from improved cylinder heads. power is never free, I asume you beleive the K&N adds and tornado adds also!!! Yes the diesels can gain hudge performance but the gassers arn't there yet and like I stated before diesel can do it because of the forced induction!! If you don't have a turbo or SuperCharger you aren't gonna see these huge gains.

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

Sorry I keep noticing things, the actual gain at equivlant RPMSs show only 2ftlbs difference between stock and performance tuned at 4000 rpms and a whopping 8HP at 5300 rpms above the stock numbers.

Also for reference this is a good indicator of how effiecient the drivetrain is. It shows at a peak HP for the stock 5.3L HO 243HP and 273ftlbs. Lets see advertised numbers at the flywheel are 310 and 335 so 243/310 and 273/335 equal .784 and .815 so your getting roughly a 20% loss in power between the engine and the rear wheels so now your down to a whopping 240hp truck at 5200-5300 rpms. now ar cruising speed your only at 2000-3000 rpms which yeilds a total of 91 to 148 HP to the ground. boy, now isn't this a far stretch from how they advertise!!! FJYI the torque at 2000-3000 rpms is at 238-259ftlbs.

NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

Whatever lund,you are the "gate keeper" hang in there and I hope your day gets better...lol.I should know better and not believe what I read,my imagination tends to run wild...SHEEESE!

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

hey, just setting the records straight, sorry you got roped into the hype! If it makes you feel any better my V10 is only makking a whopping 112-172hp at 2000-3000rpms but is pushing 295-301ftlbs at the same rpm band. Just shows that HP and Tq are never free.

walynut's picture
walynut
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 12:00am

Lund,

V10? Thats a Dodge correct?

 

Good Luck and Good Fishin'

Eric T

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

Nope, 05' Ford 3Valve V10. I see I made a mistake on the V10 numbers. Hypertechs graph is for the 04' which was before the 5R100 Trans, the exhaust, intake, and head improvements were made. The posted numbers work for the 01-04' Ford V10s (which are rated @ 310hp & 425ftlb), the 99-00s were about 30hp less than the 01-03's. The 05's are flywheel rated for 362HP and 457ftlbs but I've yet to see a Dyno run to verify these numbers. It definitly feels stronger than my 03' but that could have a lot to do with going from a 3.73LS to a 4.30LS rear end and the addeed gear in the new auto.

cumminsguy
Offline
Joined: Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:58am

Lund115 is correct on everything he is saying. Good posts Lund115.

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

Tim, now I know I've been a little harsh but if it's any consolation I have gauges on order and will be purchacing a SCMT programmer this spring before the camping/fishing begins. I'm personally buying one for adjusting the tire size and recalobrating the speedo, eliminating the top speed limiter, and incresing the trany firmness. But I won't lie, I can garentee that I'll have to try the tow perf. tune since I'll already own it. If I get a noticeable gain it'll probably stay programed for 91-93 octane but chances are I'll end up seting it up just for the rest of the stuff and leaving then engine tune alone(this is what I ended up doing on my 03').

Jeager, I would personally recomend atleast the 3.73 rear gears. The 3.42s just don't make more than about 1/2-1mpg difference, heck I've only noticed 1mpg difference going from 3.73s to 4.30s and my new truck weighs about 400lbs more than the old one. There is a point that a numerically lower gear will actually hurt intown mileage as the engine is always working harder to get the vehicle moving. Also with 3.73s or 4.10s towing will be improved and it may be easier to sell when the time comes but that just depends on the buyer. You seem like a GM guy but if not the new F150 is a hudge improvement over the old and have proven to be pretty good trucks so far. Also you may want to wait one more year as GM will be coming out with a new line of trucks for 07'-08' model year. The Dodges aren't bad either but the hemi seems to be the thirstiest of the big three; but has also proven to be the most powerful on the dyno, agian the the workable RPM range is pretty high where they developed a good portion of there power. The ford may have the least but peaks both the HP and torque considerable lower than the Gm or Dodge. When it comes to real world I really have no ansewer as I haven't had any of the three and only have my friends vehicles to base my opinions off of so I'll leave this as a technical post. have fun, buyin new vehicles is a blast!

NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

lund,
Look into the updated hypertech graphs,since 04 there has been two upgrades.My reply to jaeger was what my experience was/is,its good you have your own Dyno-tech,keep up the good work...

Flagger,

I here ya on the 3.42's,plenty of power out of the hole,on occasion I'll drop the tranny into "D" and or "tow haul" for hills or "stop and go" thru small towns,no worries.

walynut's picture
walynut
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 12:00am

Snow,
I was going to bring up the upgrades also, data supports what you are saying but I didn't think I would be able to get a word in edgewise. Still working that tire issue, called and complained to GM, waiting to here there reply if any. Thanks for the help though for whats it's worth.

 

Good Luck and Good Fishin'

Eric T

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:00am

I realize that a Ford is a little off topic but, I just went from a '01 with 3:55 to an 05 with 3:73's, granted the new truck has 40HP more and 15# more torque and makes that torque at a lower RPM, but the difference is still very noticeable. I'll have no trouble pulling my 17.5 ft glass boat in overdrive thanks to the deeper gears and lower peak torque. As I understand HP vs. Torque, HP will get you up to speed but it takes torque and or deeper gears to maintain that speed under load such as a hill, stiff headwind, heavy loaded trailer/payload etc. I could be mistaken, the HP vs. Torque could be exactly the opposite too, but I think I'm right. If someone has a better explanation or if I'm flat out wrong I'm willing to learn.

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



walynut's picture
walynut
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 12:00am

Horsager,

Your willing to learn? Can you teach a "horsfly" or a "horspie" to learn? Please dont take offense to this, I just got done reading that other thread and laughing my butt off. LOL

 

Good Luck and Good Fishin'

Eric T

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:00am

walynut, didn't need to learn in that situation. I had the facts straight and well documented. In the case of HP vs. Torque I'm not so sure.

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

walynut,
I thought you made the upgrade? If customer service gets back to you at all they will stand behind the 245/16's relative to shift points on the allison.I agree on the factory tires...(POS)

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

The graph that I grabbed off of the Hypertech web site was for the 05' 5.3L HO, I'm not positive but I believe that is the 310HP aluminum version.

I'll disgress for a minute, please bear with me, lol. HP is a figure that is base off of torque and RPM, it is not a stand alone number. the only way to get HP is to have a LOT of torque or a HIGH rpm engine. There is a point though at which the HP and torque will cross and that is at the magical 5250 RPM, at this point the HP will equal the torque no matter what it is. The formula for horsepower is HP = (TQxRPM)/ 5250. for instance lets use the 5.3L for exapmle. It's rated at a peak torque of 335ftlbs at 4000 RPMs so 335x4000 / 5250 = 255 HP. this essetially means that at 4000 RPM (your torque peak) your making 255hp.

Maybe this will help clarify a little. torque is a essentially a measured rotational force around a given point. it can be increased or decrease through gearing. For instance a 3.42 geared truck may put down 250ftlbs to the ground where a 4.10/11 geared truck may be capable of more around 300ftlbs. this is why changing tire size will affect your towing ability, you are effectivly changing the rear gear by changing the tire diameter.

HP on the other hand is a force measured over time, hence the need for RPMs; which time comes in to play with the Minutes in RPMS. so again if you want to increase your HP as long as the drop off of torque is less than the increase in RPMs you will always be able to increase the HP. I guess in laymens terms HP cann't not stand alone without torque no matter no how where torque is a force that is independent of all other figures and numbers and has no formula, its a direct measurement.

Torque essentially gets the load moving, burns tires, and lugs stuff up hills without reving the crap outa the engine. HP on the other hand is what creats the sensation of "speed". Take for example diesels. They've always had massive amounts of torque but untill just a couple of years ago the HP was pathetic, and they were extremely slow, but they could pull a house of the foundation. The new diesels are now all 300-400hp engines that still have substantial torque but they have become much much faster, actually comparable to gassers, compare HP numbers, quite similar. The new diesels are also turning more RPMS than the older ones, hence an increase in HP. Hopefull this helps clarify things instead of mudding the water even more.

This is the reason I bought a Ford V10 with the 4.30s, I have 90% of my torque at 2000 rpms wich is a great number for a gas engine. I dislike the diesel charactoristics of the noise, smell, fuel, and extra maintenence costs but I wanted something with the torque that I could tow 70mph and not have to worry about hills when I'm grossing over 17,000lbs. The 05' 6.0 ford diesel is only avalable with the 3.73 rear end where I can get the 4.30 with the V10. The diesel is makeing 325HP and 570-580ftlbs. The V10 is making 362 HP but is able to take the 457ftlb of torque and use the 4.30 which put me within 50ftlbs of the diesel at the rear wheels on the ground. I figure I got the best of both worlds and since I only drive about 6k a year on the truck the 5k dollar upfront price and extra maintenence of the diesel was enough for me to buy the V10 with no regrets what so ever. It tows better than anything I've ever owned before and makes a 7500lb truck feel pretty light on its feet when you really want go, thanks to the 362 HP. Clear as mud right, lol!

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:00am

That's exactly how I thought it worked!! LOL

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



walynut's picture
walynut
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 12:00am

Snow,

Still standing by, I would just like to know that if something, say the trans. takes a crap, it won't cost me 38K to fix it. The last thing I would want is a dealer to argue over the tire change, I dont know if I would trust MYSELF and my INSTINCT'S if that happened. Getting ready to order the tonneau cover, brush guard and nerf bars for it though.

 

Good Luck and Good Fishin'

Eric T

NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

Yeah,you could get some static,just keep your 245's just in case,the tranny is tough and won't just "puke" on ya.Better get those 265's before you start driving on the ice...

NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

waly,

Curious,what toneau? For GM keep away from "truxedo" The ones I've tried always leak'd and let dust filter in,had/still having goodluck with the "Access" They run about $389 here.

walynut's picture
walynut
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 12:00am

Looking at buying an EXTANG Tonneau, they look decent and have decent reviews. I've experinced the same with the Truxedo so I though I would give this a try. About the same price so what the hay, give the old girl try.

 

Good Luck and Good Fishin'

Eric T

NSO Field Staff...
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

extang huh? thats a new one for me,"snaps" or "velcro?" Spendy?

walynut's picture
walynut
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 12:00am

They make a bunch of different ones, the one I chose is velcro, dont feel like fumbling with snaps in the cold and it is a very low profile. 10 year warranty and a 9 moisture rating. Also runs around $300.

 

Good Luck and Good Fishin'

Eric T

sirhc
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 2:19pm

My question if for Lund115. Seems like you know what your talking about. Lets say you wanted to buy a pickup to pull a 30 ft. camper every other weekend in and around 300 miles and use this pickup in the fall/winter for fishing, hunting and such. What would be your pick? Gas only. Or anyone respond.

lostinnd
Offline
Joined: Saturday, January 6, 2007 - 2:40pm

I would go with an 8.1L chevy or gmc if you need to get a gasser, diesel is ideal though.

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

Well' it depends on exactly what you plan on towing. By a 30ft camper do you mean a fifth wheel or a Travel Trailer? Are you talking 30ft overall or 30ft living space? and do you want three slides and all of the goodies or just one with the basics and a few extras to make it nice and comfortable? This can make a camper weigh anywhere between 8k lbs loaded to 13k lbs loaded, which is a big difference if your pushing the limits on a half ton at 8k lbs. Will there be a boat tagged on the back of the camper??

Also are you brand particular, or would you be find driving any of the 5 pickups (nissan, toyota, ford, chevy, or dodge)? or maybe you'd only consider three of the five. they all have viable options!

Personally at 30ft your really getting into 3/4 ton territory but a half ton can do it if properly equiped and with a driver that understands what they are doing, trust me not all do!

Give me some more criteria and I'd be glad to through some options on the table.

tazz
Offline
Joined: Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 12:00am

Thanks Lund115 and hang in there, your posts are accurate and factual and some folks will always rather believe "hype" rather than facts. Remember the folks who know better know you are right. 77hp increase in a gas motor from a computer programmer?....GM must feel pretty dumb that they went through all of the trouble of changing to an all aluminum block, different intake, different porting in the heads and a different cam just to gain the 40 hp in the 5.3 from 99 to 07. They should have consulted Hypertech first I guess.

And why are GM, Ford and Dodge wasting time offering lower gear ratio rear ends for towing when the higher ratio ones will do just as good? The scientific information used by the mechanical engineers who developed the lower gear ratio rear ends must be wrong!!! What a waste of school and training for them huh? LOL........Tazz

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

As an Engineer by trade, I'm very particular about numbers and how there derived and how to interpret them so they make sense in the "Real World". I apprieciate having someone that read this that understands the real world concept of what is posted!

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

Not to get off topic either but maybe someone can ansewer this for me: Gm has like 4 or 5 different variations of the 5.3L with everything from aluminum block to the tried and true cast Iron block. From what I understand (coming from my uncle as a GM night forman) all of the versions are now 310hp rated (or what ever the number is) they are all the same. Am I right to this point??

If they are all the same in HP what is the advantage of one over the other short of a couple hundred pound weight savings? I mean we aren't racing these things so a couple hundred pound means little short of being able to add that to the cargo or trailer weight rating. I guess I don't understand if the above is true.

tazz
Offline
Joined: Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 12:00am

Lund115,

As I understand, there are 3, 5.3's for trucks: one is cast iron and is E85 compatible, one is all aluminum, and one is all aluminum with DOD. Not sure if the cast iron is neccessary for the E85? I think E85 has a higher ignition point and therefore a cast block will hold more heat and be more efficient for E85?, just a guess.

I have heard that they will phase to DOD for all V8 engines by 2009, that iwll get rid of one.

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

Thanks tazz! That makes the most sense. and you are correct about E85 having a higher flash point as the octane rating on E85 is around 105; so that could very well have something to do with the cast iron block. In technical terms an E85 engine should have a compression ratio of about 11:1 instead of the 8 and 9:1 that most engine are. I bet they'd be a lot more effeicent and the obvious power increase would be great. unfortunatly they wouldn't run on 87 octane worth a hoot and E85 doesn't have the avalability to not be duel fueled engine. My wifes taurus is E85 compatible but I haven't run a tank through it in about 8 months, it's either to expensive or not avalibale, go figure!

sirhc
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 2:19pm

Lund here is more info. I want a 3/4 Chevy. Just not sure if I want a 1500 HD or 2500 and a 6.0 or 5.3. Didn't know the Campers could be that heavy. A Boat will be on the back sometimes only for 100 miles though. Deer hunting and such would be nice to have better gas mileage but I really need it for the summers and towing camper. Only bad thing I have heard about the chevy 6.0 is gas mileage I guess. Not against a ford pickup so much but a ford diesal is to box style for me.

Pages