Buy or Wait for 99+

[Cheezeweggie]

I'm looking at a beautiful 98 silverado 4x4 with 77k miles. It is a Z71 with a 350. I have read a lot of good reviews on the 5.3 engine. It seems to get much better mileage and has more power than the 350. The redesigned 99+ Silverado gets better overall reviews, but how much better is it ? Should I pass up this "creampuff" and keep looking for a newer truck with the 5.3 ?

 

Thanks.

[Giant]

I guess my question is how much is the truck?.. if its in really good shape, and for a low price.. I can't see a reason not to get it.

 

77k miles on a truck that is that old is really low for milage.

 

A couple quiestions that come to mind about the milage.

a) has it ever sat for long periods of time unused (thinking 3-6 months +)

b) was it only driven up the road 5mi. and never allowed to warm up on trips?

 

While low milage is never a bad thing. If its becasue it sat for a long period of time, you could have problems. I purchased a 94 deville concours for 5k that had 120k miles on it. It sat for about 8months in my parents driveway before I came home and purchased it. The sitting time killed it. water pump, hoses, window motor, front left strut ($700 part), alternator, battery, exhaust, radio, window switches, ignition module... etc.. it was one thing after the other unil I got rid of it.

 

I don't wnat to scare you from buying the truck... the 350 is a proven engine. Where cadillacs fall apart after 100k miles.

 

Just me ranting I guess.... I'll go now

-Robert-

[ADDZ71]

I don't want to start any long discussions but I'll vouch for the power of the 5.7(350) over the 5.3 - yes the 5.3 has higher peak hp but not as high torque. Mileage is a factor but I have actually fewer on my 1998 (73K). As the others stay if you can determine if the low miles came from either sitting or taking short trips I would be hesitant. If they came from someone who just did not drive it as much but when driven drove enough to warm it up then I would be okay with it. As for mileage with the 5.7 you pay for the additional torque in mpg.

 

AD

[asilverblazer]

I wouldn't wait if you plan on any kind of towing. The 5.7 is way more torquey.

 

Where cadillacs fall apart after 100k miles. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Mine is going strong at 170K miles.

[Truckman031]

I love my 98. If you pull or haul medium to heavy loads, I would buy the 98 due to the torque. That's not to say the 99+ can tow as we've pulled 9500 pound trailers with an 02 Z71. IMO, the 98 body style is the best looking one Chevy ever built, so they kind of sold me on my truck, and it was also a low mile truck(84.5k when I bought it in June). You should ask the current owner if the intake gaskets have been replaced as they WILL have to be replaced and the repair can be expensive. I get 13-15 mpg, so the mileage is a couple of mpgs off a 5.3.

[Rolandd]

The money you spend on fuel may be more than saved in the purchase price. It is a good truck if it is in decent shape. I sold my 95 with 185,k mikes and it was going strong, however I needed a clean truck for work (the paint was leaping off of the 95 as it was from Califirnia).

[cyoung1253]

I guess my question is how much is the truck?.. if its in really good shape, and for a low price.. I can't see a reason not to get it. 

 

77k miles on a truck that is that old is really low for milage. 

 

A couple quiestions that come to mind about the milage.

  a) has it ever sat for long periods of time unused (thinking 3-6 months +)

  b) was it only driven up the road 5mi. and never allowed to warm up on trips?

 

While low milage is never a bad thing.  If its becasue it sat for a long period of time, you could have problems.  I purchased a 94 deville concours for 5k that had 120k miles on it.  It sat for about 8months in my parents driveway before I came home and purchased it.  The sitting time killed it.  water pump, hoses, window motor, front left strut ($700 part), alternator, battery, exhaust, radio, window switches, ignition module... etc.. it was one thing after the other unil I got rid of it.

 

I don't wnat to scare you from buying the truck... the 350 is a proven engine.  Where cadillacs fall apart after 100k miles. 

 

Just me ranting I guess.... I'll go now

-Robert-

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

What do you mean Caddys fall apart at 100k? I had a '85 Eldorado Biaritz that was still running strong when I sold it with 197k showing on the odometer.

[Cheezeweggie]

Thanks for the input. At least now I have some important questions to ask the owner.

[svensk]

I'm sorry but I think the 350 is a turd. The cam is really to blame on it. But if the truck is priced right I wouldn't pass it up.

[tnord]

plan on towing a lot?

 

the pre-99 trucks have transmission problems if they've been used for much towing.....just ask my parents.

 

 

<----2001 with 113k miles and after 2k in general maintenance is running strong with about 5k+ miles of towing 5000lbs each year.

[Truckman031]

^^It is the same tranny, 4L60E.

[tnord]

when did they change? my parents had a 97 and it ate s**t under 100k miles pretty much never pulling anything over 2000lbs.

 

was the tranny the same and they just changed the ECU stuff with that whole tow/haul button?

[Truckman031]

I don't know what they changed to allow the Tow/Haul option. I think the Tow/Haul locks out overdrive as well as changes the shift points. This creates less downshifting so there is less heat in the tranny. Maybe someone can post as to what changes took place, b/c I have no clue. It does seem like the pree 99 trucks had more tranny failures overall(maybe more people pulling in OD vs. those using tow/haul in the new trucks). We always use tow/haul when pulling heavy equipment/tractors with the 99-up trucks and none have had a tranny problem to date(knock on wood).

[BowTieDude]

Well, I've read the pre '99 trucks used less torque management in the PCM, maybe that's why they had more trans. failures (more torque to the wheels, more damage?). Plus, if the 350 makes more torque up front, that could also be harder on the trans. too. I really like the pre '99 bodystyle, if I hadn't really wanted four doors on my truck I probably would have got one instead.

 

In any case, the 350 is a VERY solid engine. I can't believe someone would call it a turd...

[svensk]

Well, I've read the pre '99 trucks used less torque management in the PCM, maybe that's why they had more trans. failures (more torque to the wheels, more damage?). Plus, if the 350 makes more torque up front, that could also be harder on the trans. too. I really like the pre '99 bodystyle, if I hadn't really wanted four doors on my truck I probably would have got one instead.

 

In any case, the 350 is a VERY solid engine. I can't believe someone would call it a turd...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I never said it wasn't solid, but it WAS a turd. I mean come on the 5.3 is based on the same block so why would it be less solid of a motor?