INTERNAL ENGINE MODIFICATIONS Valvetrain |Heads | Strokers | Design | Assembly

The 5.3L Colorado is here! What's the difference?

Old Jul 27, 2008 | 05:39 PM
  #21  
Parke10's Avatar
TECH Addict
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 1
From: Bakersfield,Ca
Default

Originally Posted by ZZebes
wonder how hard it's gonna be to put longtubes on one of these lol
Son of a bitch..... pull the engine put em on, put it back in IMFO
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2008 | 06:10 PM
  #22  
95 bright teal's Avatar
TECH Addict
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, AZ
Default

cant be much worse than a camaro!
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2008 | 06:20 PM
  #23  
fastnblu's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,718
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by BlownChevy
... I will show you how to add 120 RWHP more
How? U puttin a turbo on it?
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2008 | 06:30 PM
  #24  
95 bright teal's Avatar
TECH Addict
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, AZ
Default

did you read the begining of his post?
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2008 | 06:55 PM
  #25  
skyhighsami's Avatar
no title here
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,352
Likes: 3
From: Montgomery, AL
Default

Originally Posted by 95 bright teal
did you read the begining of his post?
That was a joke I am sure
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2008 | 07:09 PM
  #26  
fastnblu's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,718
Likes: 1
Default

Yes, it was. Some are slower than others.
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2008 | 09:35 PM
  #27  
zippy's Avatar
TECH Veteran
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,534
Likes: 3
From: Las Vegas, NV
Default

I'm planning on ordering one for stock at work here soon just to test drive it. The extended cab 2wd can be had with 3.73s and weigh's in around 3700-3900lbs. It should fly. They are using the same engine that has been in the Trailblazers so it doesn't have the good heads and cam. Both are easily fixed though. Stock quarter mile times should be into the low 14's stock and low 13's to high 12's with bolt on's including a converter. With the D.O.D. it should get very good milage also. I don't see why the 4.8L isn't in the mix yet, but happy with the 5.3L option. If they made a regular cab with the 5.3L I'd consider it as a replacement for my current ride.
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2008 | 09:50 PM
  #28  
GMCtrk's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (27)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,275
Likes: 19
From: Dallas
Default

The 4.8L needs to be gotten rid of. It's too weak for the fullsize trucks (no torque) and gets no better gas mileage than the 5.3
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2008 | 09:54 PM
  #29  
InchUp's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Resident
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by GMCtrk
The 4.8L needs to be gotten rid of. It's too weak for the fullsize trucks (no torque) and gets no better gas mileage than the 5.3
It would be the easy answer to the Dodge Dakota's 4.7L and high output 4.7L V8's. In a full size gas mileage is just a hair better if you keep your foot out of the gas, but in a mini truck like the Colorado, the 4.8L could probably see high 20's if not 30mpg with a spot-on tune. I'd say ditch the inline-5 cylinder and replace all 4x4's and Z71's with the 4.8L and have the 5.3L as a sports option.
Reply
Old Jul 27, 2008 | 10:00 PM
  #30  
geestyle4's Avatar
Teching In
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: mass.
Default

sounds good iam saying run a 13 with some tuning and muffler
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.