GM 5.3 L pickup motor

[David Weaver]

The 300 and the GM 3800 were engines that I really liked. The 3800 never had anything spectacular about it, but when you drove a car with it, the car always drove nice in regular driving and most of the GM cars fell apart around them before they failed.

Maybe the 300 lost out on the paper stat race (I can sell you a 200 horsepower 6 cylinder that makes its power at 4400 rpm or a 300 horsepower that makes it at 6500 and makes 3/4ths what the 300 does at 4400 - but it's hard for most people to get over 300 vs. 200 without thinking about anything else, and if Ferd offers 200 or that plus a little and GM offers 300, most people are fixated on the number and they'll look elsewhere). Maybe it was heavy and more expensive, too? Who knows. I liked it. And a lot better than the 302 upgrade.

[Stephen Cherry]

Nostalgic memories of the 300 6 are great, but if you look at the torque curve of the gm 5.3 liter, it is way over the 300 six at the the sixes peak, 2000 rpm, and continues to rise until it peaks at around 4100. I still have the old 6, and it is OK, but it in no way compares to the modern engines in torque or power or mpg. Maybe the 300 6 was as good as the old 302, an engine that proved itself in taxis and police cars, but time has left them both behind.

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/19...res-specs.html

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us...silverado.html

[David Weaver]

Nostalgic memories of the 300 6 are great, but if you look at the torque curve of the gm 5.3 liter, it is way over the 300 six at the the sixes peak, 2000 rpm, and continues to rise until it peaks at around 4100. I still have the old 6, and it is OK, but it in no way compares to the modern engines in torque or power or mpg. Maybe the 300 6 was as good as the old 302, an engine that proved itself in taxis and police cars, but time has left them both behind.

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/19...res-specs.html

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us...silverado.html

I was wondering that, too, sometimes we remember things being better because the vehicles they were in weighed 2/3rds as much. I think the biggest problem with the current trucks (for the average person) is that they're too big. It would be nice if the half ton was 2/3rd the size of the super duty.

[Mac McQuinn]

I agree, since around 2007, 1/2 ton trucks have increased in size and weight. How are you going to increase fuel mileage by making things bigger and heavier, especially with the huge frontal area and overall height. Ironically in a regular cab, they still only sit (3) across and haul 4x8' sheets in the back, just like my 1972 Chevy 1/2 ton....Mac

I was wondering that, too, sometimes we remember things being better because the vehicles they were in weighed 2/3rds as much. I think the biggest problem with the current trucks (for the average person) is that they're too big. It would be nice if the half ton was 2/3rd the size of the super duty.

[David Weaver]

I looked it up a while ago and found that a stripped down truck is about 1500 pounds heavier now than it was 30 years ago. Granted a lot of the trucks now are like cars inside and people wouldn't want anything like those trucks 30 years ago, but like you say, you could fit a sheet of plywood in them and they got the same mileage trucks do now and cost a fraction, even after adjusting for inflation.