Jump to content

GMT800 Talk, chime in

absinthminded
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 311
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

white1500
white1500

I find it so odd that a clean 00-02 still attracts me way more than any gmt900 ever could, and than the K2's currently do.   I see a well kept black 99-02 Silverado every 2 weeks that looks identica

hockeypro1411
hockeypro1411

I beg to differ on ALL of that.. The build quality of the 900's will never be as solid as the 800's. With fuel economy requirements and such, the thinner and lighter materials make it impossible. In m

Justin_Denton
Justin_Denton

I have an 04 Silverado LT with 102k that I got in 06 and haven't had any problems with it. Just rebuilt the entire front end and did brakes last year. I want a new one but love not having a payment.

Posted Images

pm26 Senior Enthusiast

pm26

Posted
Posted (edited)

No need to downgrade to a GMT900 yet.

 

 

HaHa! I can honestly say I've never heard that one before.

 

 

Well, GM did eliminate some nice features that LT GMT 800 trucks had as standard equipment. Decent bumpers, body color fender flares, rear window defroster, automatic dimming rear view mirror, torsion bar front suspension on the 1500 4WD models, and much better quality inner door panels and cloth seats. On the other hand GMT 900 trucks benefited from the new front suspension to give them a car like ride, and the dash has been lowered for better view of the road . Also, the new 6 speed auto transmission is a big improvement. However, addition of the AFM system on the 5.3 liter engine negated the upgrades in my opinion.

Edited by pm26
Garrett Street Enthusiast

Garrett Street

Posted
Posted

^^^^ That's the craziest post I've ever seen. The bumbers thing is kind of true, but it's not like any of the new trucks have good bumpers anymore. The fender flares are also a matter of opinion because I never liked the body colored flares, I only was ever interested in the black flares. I don't know about the next two (auto dimmer and rear defrost) because I've never had either in any of my trucks. However, the torsion front end is most definitely NOT better than coil over that the 900 series uses. The 900's ride better, are easier to modify, stronger, and have less problems. The 6 speed is a huge advancement and the new 5.3 has more power. I own a 99 Silverado and love my truck, but I've spent a lot of time in the 900 series trucks and they're heads and shoulders better than the 800's. They ride better, are stronger, drive better, pull better, control trailers better, haul better, have much better frames, have a better quality interior and better cab space. The only thing my truck has on the 900's is better off-road abilities because of it's approach angle.

  • Like 1
Mckenzie Senior Enthusiast

Mckenzie

Posted
Posted

ill take my 01 over any of that newer shit, i ran that mother ****er thru a fence and ditch (which it came out of in 2wd) going 50 mph and all it had was some body damage which me and a buddy replaced. It sustained no mechanical damage and still tracks straight as can be. I will never get rid of that truck

absinthminded Enthusiast

absinthminded

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I replaced my water pump today. Its been leaking slowly for a while.

FYI the nut that mounts the fan to the pulley is 36mm. It took me two trips to two different stores before I found a crescent wrench large enough.

 

Tomorrow the axle seals go in.

 

I'm waiting for the fuel pump to go as well. 160k on the clock and counting...

  • Like 1
pm26 Senior Enthusiast

pm26

Posted
Posted

^^^^ That's the craziest post I've ever seen. The bumbers thing is kind of true, but it's not like any of the new trucks have good bumpers anymore. The fender flares are also a matter of opinion because I never liked the body colored flares, I only was ever interested in the black flares. I don't know about the next two (auto dimmer and rear defrost) because I've never had either in any of my trucks. However, the torsion front end is most definitely NOT better than coil over that the 900 series uses. The 900's ride better, are easier to modify, stronger, and have less problems. The 6 speed is a huge advancement and the new 5.3 has more power. I own a 99 Silverado and love my truck, but I've spent a lot of time in the 900 series trucks and they're heads and shoulders better than the 800's. They ride better, are stronger, drive better, pull better, control trailers better, haul better, have much better frames, have a better quality interior and better cab space. The only thing my truck has on the 900's is better off-road abilities because of it's approach angle.

 

 

Better quality interior? With plastic tool shed wall door panels and cheapest looking lint collecting seats imaginable? Don't make me laugh. And if coil over strut suspension is so strong, why did they retain front torsion bar suspension on 2500 and 3500 series trucks?

HEMICAT Enthusiast

HEMICAT

Posted
Posted

I mean not to offend anyone, but the 800's were the reason I drifted away from GM. I think they were a mistake, and one of GM's worst designs- it wasn't until the 900's that I even started looking at GM's again.

It's just one man's opinion though ( and a lot of my friends ), On my thoughts of GM over the last 15 years or so.

SarahsGMC Senior Enthusiast

SarahsGMC

Posted
Posted

you can easily get a nbs duramax for 20k thats what all the ones on the diesel site im on go for my buddy just sold his nbs for 17k, this one had tunes and all kinds of mods as well. you shouldnt have a problem finding one.

 

545686_334020316668643_1785788473_n.jpg

 

430036_10150590910026051_1527186755_n.jpg

hockeypro1411 Senior Enthusiast

hockeypro1411

Posted
Posted

I mean not to offend anyone, but the 800's were the reason I drifted away from GM. I think they were a mistake, and one of GM's worst designs- it wasn't until the 900's that I even started looking at GM's again.

It's just one man's opinion though ( and a lot of my friends ), On my thoughts of GM over the last 15 years or so.

 

 

I beg to differ on ALL of that.. The build quality of the 900's will never be as solid as the 800's. With fuel economy requirements and such, the thinner and lighter materials make it impossible. In my opinion, the 800 series trucks are the best trucks GM has put out to date.

  • Like 3
Prokopchuk_9 Senior Enthusiast

Prokopchuk_9

Posted
Posted

I mean not to offend anyone, but the 800's were the reason I drifted away from GM. I think they were a mistake, and one of GM's worst designs- it wasn't until the 900's that I even started looking at GM's again.

It's just one man's opinion though ( and a lot of my friends ), On my thoughts of GM over the last 15 years or so.

 

 

I beg to differ on ALL of that.. The build quality of the 900's will never be as solid as the 800's. With fuel economy requirements and such, the thinner and lighter materials make it impossible. In my opinion, the 800 series trucks are the best trucks GM has put out to date.

 

Yes I agree with hockeypro, the 900's are nice trucks. But the 800's are still more of a "truck" compared to the 900 IMO.

pm26 Senior Enthusiast

pm26

Posted
Posted (edited)

A falling acorn denting the hood is the best testimony of solid construction of GMT900 trucks. I wonder what a pine cone would do?

Edited by pm26
  • Like 2
zach1990 Senior Enthusiast

zach1990

Posted
Posted

I can attest with grapes experiance these things if nothing else can take a beating. In 2008 I got hit in the driver side fender by a 2007 trailblazer. The tb was totaled, as in no front end left but a sledge hammer got everything off my tire and I drove home and slapped a grille and fender on and chained the bumper to a tree and pulled it straight. I now feel really safe driving this truck. Mechanically, well is 304,500 miles enough to speak for itself. Stock motor btw, transmission went last summer but that was mostly my fault.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I927 using Tapatalk 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...