Chevy_King1500

iTrader: (7)

This is not the same test

TIM Z

iTrader: (12)

Yup ^^^

This was a long while ago , but still very cool !

I believe this article had a lot of guys questioning ring gap .

LSx FTW !!!!!!

fastnblu

iTrader: (2)

A lifter on a pretty stock motor internally is an inexpensive part to fail, so it makes u feel all fuzzy inside how strong these motors are instead of fraggin a crank, rods, or pistons.

o2camaross

iTrader: (2)

Wait, this isn't the same test that Hotrod did? I guess Ill go back and read the article

fastnblu

iTrader: (2)

Can someone who has the Hot Rod article give me. the date of mag it that 4.8TT was in there?
Cause that I may have.

When it was gone from bookstore, I was gonna take to PT & ask someone to scan the Truckin article for me. Cause I knew I wasn't the only 1 on PT who saw it. And voila, here it is!

Chevy_King1500

iTrader: (7)

Sept. 4.8 only made 1203 hp

also running the FAST intake and upgraded cam and heads

its basically the same exact set-up but this time with an actual 5.3

o2camaross

iTrader: (2)

cool! So the only thing that failed was the stock 160k mi lifter

fastnblu

iTrader: (2)

Lifter & pushrod was it. They reran in N/A form, & power was only down 15 HP after replacin the culprit. That's just amazin.

If I was a Chevy exec or Jon Moss type who had a grudge match goin against Ford, I'd go, here, read this. Then walk away sayin, Game Over!

Chevy King quoted that 4.8 TT Hot Rod test, & now that I had time to look, they were indeed not the test. I'll blame that on note bein able to devote my full attn. a bit ago, but mostly on Roger for misinforming me!

smokeshow

iTrader: (16)

Lol, yeah. I don't care if you're a diehard Ford or Dodge or import fanboy...show me an engine not built for boost that can handle it like these motors do.

Atomic

iTrader: (42)

It only took 10 years for people to say eff it and throw on a turbo on a stockish engine and see what happens.