Was The 5.3l Avaible For 3/4 Ton Pu In 2000 & 2001?

[dlstewart01]

New for 1999 in the new 1999 brochure...

 

[MS3DALE]

Yeah,But they never used the "HD" wording after the "2500" for '99-'00 trucks (Notice it just says "2500" and not "2500HD") .....Now they were considered heavier-duty trucks since they had the 6.0 engine,4L80E trans,8-bolt hubs,9.5' rear-axle,and the higher GVWR...But GM never considered them "HD's" like they do the '01-up trucks.

[dlstewart01]

Yeah, we know its a 2500...but the original debate was...no 2500 GMT800 was made in 1999. Someone...who said they didn't make a 2500 in 1999, and wants people to think he knows much more than he actually does, then went back and changed his post to appear he knew what he was talking about...

 

Appreciate your help, MS3DALE

[MS3DALE]

Yeah, we know its a 2500...but the original debate was...no 2500 GMT800 was made in 1999.

 

Appreciate your help, MS3DALE

 

There was a GMT800 2500 in '99....I almost bought one. There was also still the GMT400 2500 as well....we had one for a parts truck.

[[email protected]]

Yeah, we know its a 2500...but the original debate was...no 2500 GMT800 was made in 1999.

 

Appreciate your help, MS3DALE

 

There was a GMT800 2500 in '99....I almost bought one. There was also still the GMT400 2500 as well....we had one for a parts truck.

 

 

Exactly, there was both.

[h2ofwlr]

Oh my God! What did I start!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[h2ofwlr]

As I always say who buys a truck for gas mileage?

 

I do. Serious, some of us are poor working stiffs. Getting an extra 2-3 MPG average is a big deal for a guy like me. I need a truck as I work for a living and use a truck for work. I'm no fancy smancy guy like some are that should be regulated to SUVs which are for the suburbanites... I can not afford a new truck, so am forced to look for 10 year old vehicles.

 

For those that can afford a new truck, good for you as I do not hold that against anyone. But I think perhaps some guys here do not fully appreciate what some of us blue collar stiffs have to do to even buy a 10YO truck as we try to scrape by just to put food on the table.

 

 

Anyway, guys thank you for the info. I got quite an education today.

[Zembonez]

Oh my God! What did I start!

 

 

 

No worries. It happens a lot on this site. You riled up the fanboy experts.

[sc4808]

I laugh at them saying a 5.3 wouldnt have the power to match a 3/4 ton.. Shit remember the 3500 cab / chassis that would get huge huge tool box beds and what not thrown on them? Or DUMP BOXES? The majority of those only had a 350 chevy, which if you compare the specs, is no contest.

 

+1

 

Back in the 80's and early 90's even the 454 did not have the power that the 5.3L has.

[[email protected]]

Oh my God! What did I start!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have stirred up the evil creatures from within! You must be punished for doing the dirty deed.

[music]

I laugh at them saying a 5.3 wouldnt have the power to match a 3/4 ton.. Shit remember the 3500 cab / chassis that would get huge huge tool box beds and what not thrown on them? Or DUMP BOXES? The majority of those only had a 350 chevy, which if you compare the specs, is no contest.

 

+1

 

Back in the 80's and early 90's even the 454 did not have the power that the 5.3L has.

 

 

+2. I think part of it is that some folks now seem to think that you should be able to pull 8k lbs over a mountain at 70 mph @ 2000 rpm, or it's "working too hard". A small block V8 isn't going to do that, regardless of the chassis. Pulling over a mountain at 4000 rpm @ 60 mph is what I personally expect w/ 7k+ lbs of travel trailer. Even if the 6.0 could do the same at 3600 rpm, or the 6.2 @ 3200 rpm... what's the real difference? I only cross mountains like that a few times per year, but I drive around town every day (and don't need the extra power when I do). I can see the need for high payload and "best" economy for working trucks.

[h2ofwlr]

Then again many in the US and CAN are "flatlanders". Around here a 200' verticle climb is about all you can get. Big deal so for a mile or 2 you have grade to climb. The vast majority of folks jsut are not hauling around 7K in a trailer. I can see needing a big HP and Torq if I hauled around a Bobcat on a trailer--and that is why I have a 2 ton (15K GVW) truck for. But to haul a 3KGVW trailer, meaning a flatbed with 2 sleds, or a yd of black dirt on it, or a 14' alum fishing boat, or a 6x10 enclosed trailer--one really does not need all that HP and torq. The last sentence of hauling that IMHO any old 5.7l or the new 5.3l can handle it with ease-and I do not mean with a 4.10 ratios either-but rather the usual ratio like a 3.42 ratio.

[FargoZ71]

Quiet litterally the very point I tried making 25 posts ago, but I get tiredof these guys sayn you need XX and XX mod to be able to do jack.. Just inflated egos powered by thick wallets. but entertaining none the less.

Then again many in the US and CAN are "flatlanders". Around here a 200' verticle climb is about all you can get. Big deal so for a mile or 2 you have grade to climb. The vast majority of folks jsut are not hauling around 7K in a trailer. I can see needing a big HP and Torq if I hauled around a Bobcat on a trailer--and that is why I have a 2 ton (15K GVW) truck for. But to haul a 3KGVW trailer, meaning a flatbed with 2 sleds, or a yd of black dirt on it, or a 14' alum fishing boat, or a 6x10 enclosed trailer--one really does not need all that HP and torq. The last sentence of hauling that IMHO any old 5.7l or the new 5.3l can handle it with ease-and I do not mean with a 4.10 ratios either-but rather the usual ratio like a 3.42 ratio.

[h2ofwlr]

Resurection time....

 

So why didn't they offer the 5.3l in the 2500?

 

I just do not get what GM was thinking.... Or is THAT the problem--they wern't thinking?

[kstruckcountry]

6.0 has more torque and gets the about the same mileage. Also cost GM nearly the same to make.