Next Generation S10

StingRay · March 9, 2001

When the new Chevy "Colorado" (Thats the name to replace the S10) comes out. What options do you all want to see available.

Example:

Zr2 suspension

270 hp I6

manual t-case and so on.

DBinder · March 9, 2001

I'd like to see the 4300 out of the picture. In order to please CAFE, they should have the standard 4x4 engine be a 3.?, and make the 4.2 I6 optional, an option which I would certainly choose.

Second, the frame.....needs to be made out of something other than rubber, like hydroformed steel, and 300% stiffer, at least.

Third, ditch the torsion bars on the 4x4's, put in coils like the new Trailblazers have.

other:

Massive anti sway bar

Rack and Pinion steering

Optional composite box

That would make me quite happy.

D. Binder

'00 SLS Sonoma 4x4 ext. cab

Zane · March 9, 2001

Well, sorry to dissapoint, but from what i've heard it looks like the I6 is not part of the next gen S-10 equation. There will be, though, an inline 5, and a turbo charged I5. The base engine will most likely be an I4, with the I5, and the Turbo I5 as optional engines.

The I5 is expected to have around 200-220hp, and 200-230 ft lbs. The turbo I5 will have about 245-255 hp, and heres the kicker, near 300 ft lbs!!! the Turbo I5 is ment to be a "towing" motor, hence so much tourque.

DBinder · March 9, 2001

Yeah, I did read something about a turbo I5 version of the atlas a while back, just as long as the 4300 goes. That would work for me, especially because I lease, but I donno about buying anything turbo, unless its a diesel. But variable exhause valve timing, throttle by wire, coil on plug, aluminum block and heads....sounds good to me in any configuration (I4, I5, I6, etc.). And with the new gen. of turbos out, there should be an instant flat torque curve, with very little lag.

D. Binder

Frank S · March 9, 2001

I heard the same about the I6 not being offered in the next S trucks as well.

A turbo I5 will definitely do the trick but I still wish they would offer a V8 as an option in an SS or Xtreme model.

I don't know why everyone rips on the 4.3.that is one of the most proven OHV V6's ever and it competes nicely with most OHC V6's.

I'm not going to worry about that too much though because within a year,I have something serious in mind that will upgrade my 4.3 to a level that most current V8's would love to be at.;)

DBinder · March 10, 2001

In '96 when they reworked the 4.3 they did flatten out the torque band a bit and make it available at a lower rpm, but the balance shaft addition / modification seemed to suck out a lot of power. Obviously, as it went from 200 hp to 190 and from 260 ft lbs to 240-250. The engine does seem very durrable, but its still quite rough and it has lots of old tech for being a GM truck engine. Also, it could have a lot more power for its displacement. My truck does alright once up to speed, especially at high speeds, lots of power. it has a 3.73 diff, though, so it should do well at any speed. Take off can be entertaining, as there is enough to spin the tires, but not enough to escape wheel hop, I have to really gun it from a dead stop to spin 'em fast enough to avoid it. The '95 Sonoma ext cab 4x4 we had was a lot faster in my opinion, it would break loose at 10 mph with a 3.4? rear end.

sorry for the length

D. Binder

'00 SLS Sonoma 4x4 ext. cab

Frank S · April 3, 2001

DB

I definitely agree that they could easily have more power.I'd really like to see them have around 225-250 hp out of the 4.3 from the factory.

BTW,I crawled under my truck to check the plugs you were wondering about but the weather was nasty and i didn't have time to trace them.I will look at them closer after work on wednesday and let you know something.

98S10 · April 14, 2001

What would I like to see on next gen. S10?

- I6 option would be sweet, although, I guess if the I5 Turbo is available for 2WD's, that would be a screamer and more then sufficient for my taste.

- 8.5 inch rear end or bigger(instead of my weak 7.5 inch that I'm going to blowout sometime, when I'm hitting up so. cal. desert trail at 60mph)

- Easy to lift front 2WD suspension.(which I think has already been done, if the 2WD Colorado's will have the same susp. as new 2WD Tblazers?) With plenty of room up front for CST to design upper and lower A-arms, lift spindle, and a coil over shock. I was happy to see no coil springs on the 2WD Tblazer, hopefully the colorado will be the same, PLENTY of room in the front susp. area for off-road suspension mods to keep desert nuts happy.

- Stiffer frame

- bigger fuel tank(25 gallon would be nice!)

- A 2WD ZR2 option(just like Toyotas Prerunner)

- A class III hitch option from the factory

- Inner front fenders, so that it would be easier to install fiberglass front off-road fenders.

Thats all I can think of for right now.

Does anyone know, if the front end styling of the Colorado will be identical to the new Tblazer? I'm excited about this truck coming out, should be a good one. When can we estimate this truck to hit dealer lots?

305fan · April 15, 2001

A dedicated SS (or similar) model. 17" wheels, 4 wheel discs, appropriate trim and graphics. Lets go smoke some R/T Dakotas!

4.8 270hp V8- or 4.2 I6 or 3.5 Turbo. The V8 or I6 might not be in the cards for the "Colarado" but those are my picks in order.

For other models- 2.5 DOHC 16 valve 175 hp

3.5 DOCH I5- normaly aspirated- 215hp

Frank S · April 15, 2001

Quote: from 305fan on 9:27 pm on April 14, 2001
A dedicated SS (or similar) model. 17" wheels, 4 wheel discs, appropriate trim and graphics. Lets go smoke some R/T Dakotas!

4.8 270hp V8- or 4.2 I6 or 3.5 Turbo. The V8 or I6 might not be in the cards for the "Colarado" but those are my picks in order.

For other models- 2.5 DOHC 16 valve 175 hp

3.5 DOCH I5- normaly aspirated- 215hp

This is definitely a person after my heart!

If they have problems with the I6 fitting in the next gen,the 4.8 is easily an acceptable substitute IMO.

Welcome aboard 305fan!

(Edited by yZR2k at 9:48 pm on April 14, 2001)

305fan · April 15, 2001

Thanks! I'm really lookig forward to the next generation

of the S-10. GM has made tremendous strides in the last few years, better engines and overall design. They have a real chance to make a great truck.

Chuggernaut · May 15, 2001

I think they SHOULD NOT water down the 4.2 I6 and keep it at 290HP. Then for 5hits, giggles and bragging rights, turbocharge it and call it a Syclone II!!!

To heck with the Dak R/T's -- I wanna smoke some Lightnings!! Those hp and torque stats improved by a turbo, all under the hood of midsize!!! #### YEAH!!

S-10 · October 25, 2001

I think that the new S-10's should have a v-8 in them. Lower than what they are now. factory cd-player/changer. Premium sound system. Alloy wheels and better goodies too.

CMNTMXR81 · October 25, 2001

DBinder, I don't know why you hate the 4.3L Vortec V6? It was the engine that started the whole Vortec V8 revolution, which in turn was the genesis of the LS1. I find that motor near and dear to my heart.

Also, you are incorrect about the counter rotating balance shaft that dropped HP. It was the change from CPI (Central Port Injection) with the infamous "spider" to SFI in order to be OBDII compliant that dropped the HP by 10hp and torque by 10lbs-ft.

The CPI version of the L35 V6 came out in mid 1993 and ran until 1995. In 1995 they installed the counter rotating balance shaft. All L35's to that date were 200hp and 265lbs-ft of torque. In '96 they converted to SFI and all the sudden it dropped to 190hp and 255lbs-ft of torque.

I had a 94 Bravada and a 95 Blazer. Both had the same exact L35 with the exception being the 95 had the C.R.B.S. and they pulled exactly the same albeit the Bravada didn't feel as torquey do to the SmarTrak masking some of it.

DBinder · November 5, 2001

I came across your post last week, surprising, since this thread has been dead for so long. I've been kind of hard on the 4.3, I know. I think I have a bit of resentment, wrongfully directed, knowing an engine its size should have a bit more hp. And how it did, in my case, have noticeably more power in '95. Our '95 Sonoma would run circles around my '00 Sonoma, same setup, different years. It also seems like my 4300 doesn't wind up as quick as the '95, even in neutral, like there's extra internal weight...hence my theory on the balance shaft taking hp away. The biggest thing that bothers me about my 4300 is the fact that it seems to run out of steam at high rpm, and starts making all kinds of crackly, knock-detonation sounds near red-line, very unsettling….but it never seems to affect anything.

I really got excited about all the new technology in the new 4200 I6, but after driving one, I guess the old fashion grunt of the 4300 still edges out the new tech. The 4300 isn't as smooth or powerful as I'd like, but its got guts, and deserves a lot of respect for its heritage and reliability. Heck, I get pretty upset when anyone starts talking bad about the 3800, and I don't even own one!

It'd be great if the new I5 had near 300hp like the rumors say, but it'd better at least give us the torque of the 4300, or people are going to be asking where that 300hp is...just like so many ask where the 270hp is in the I6.