GMC Sierra/Chevy Silverado - +07 with the 4.8/5.3

[cancov]

All are very good points.

NHHEMI...Did the extended cab satisfy any rear-riding passengers. I have a 9 month old and we're again expecting in February which involves car seats and such. I'm thinking the Crew Cab will be best, but as others have pointed out the extended cab is cheaper.

 

[MNgopher]

I don't own a GM truck at the moment, but I'll offer my perspective on the extended cab / crew cab issue.

I have two kids now, one 3 1/2 and the other a new born. We bought a super crew F150 to replace the supercab F150 we had because of the lack of backseat space. The issue was not comfort for the backseat kids, the issue was comfort for the front seat passengers! The front seats needed to be pulled pretty far forward to make things work in the back. The supercrew solved those issues with ease.

Also note that while the crew cabs are more expensive up front, they also are more expensive used so you'll have that going for you on resale. Trust me on that one - they are the in demand version on the used market.

On the engine side, I owned two trucks with the smaller V8 and they worked fine. Speed demons? No. Reliable and got the job done (sometimes slowly) Yes. If you have to keep up with the Jonses, the 5.3 is a no brainer. If there is a steal to be had on a 4.8, then if my needs were such that it would work, I'd bite.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
A co-worker has an '09 Silverado and we have a '10 Silverado at work as a work truck. His '09 is a fully-loaded crew cab Z71. The '10 is a short bed, short cab, 4x4 work truck. Both have the 5.3L. The '10 short bed is a rocket with that engine. The '09 is dragged down much more with the additional weight of the larger truck.

Based on driving them both, I'd vote for the 5.3L also if you plan to get anything other than a short bed, short cab truck.



You say the crewcab is dragged down by all that additional weight? I agree the WT would be a speed demon comapared to a heavy optioned truck. But this is interesting:

From Chevrolet website: the base 4x2 worktruck (WT) extended cab has a curb weight of 4904lbs in full LTZ trim it is 5353lbs. A crewcab base 4x2 WT is 5094lb and LTZ is 5290lb. So in the case of an extended cab WT 4x2 the crewcab is only 190lbs heavier. The LTZ 4x2 is 63lbs LIGHTER than the WT...that is from the website but it has to be wrong! In any case, I think the crewcabs are only about 250lbs on average heavier than an extended cab. Performance should be very similiar. I prefer crewcabs for the funtionality and resale.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
You say the crewcab is dragged down by all that additional weight? I agree the WT would be a speed demon comapared to a heavy optioned truck. But this is interesting:


I should have elaborated. His truck is "heavily" optioned, including a tool box in the back, a diamond plate dog box, etc. He's not more stuff in that truck than I have in my garage. It feels and drives, subjectively, like it weighs about 6,000 pounds. The WT, by comparison, is rather light on its feet and a real blast to kick around.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Where I'm seeing it on Chevy's website, the WT 4x4 weighs in at 4,909 pounds. It must be an LT trim, because WT comes with 4.3L V6 only. LTZ crew cab is 5,423. That's a 500 pound difference, quite a bit.

So, interestingly, I'll bet his truck really does weigh 6,000 pounds with the extra stuff he has in it.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher

On the engine side, I owned two trucks with the smaller V8 and they worked fine. Speed demons? No. Reliable and got the job done (sometimes slowly) Yes. If you have to keep up with the Jonses, the 5.3 is a no brainer. If there is a steal to be had on a 4.8, then if my needs were such that it would work, I'd bite.



GM and Chrysler have both put themselves in a quandry with their truck engine lineups. The fact that MDS (Chrysler) and AFM (GM) really do work and really are reliable means that a Ram 1500 with the 5.7 Hemi gets the same gas mileage and has more power than the 4.7 SOHC. Similarly the Chevy 5.3 gets the same mileage and has more power than the 4.8.

Really it does kinda come down to purchase price. In the Dodge world, there was a time when you could get a SCREAMING deal on a 4.7 because the Hemi was so much more in demand. That's when my 4.7 Ram 1500 was bought, in fact. Paid $19k for a truck that listed $31k simply because it had been on the dealer lot 280 days. It was sandwiched between Hemi Ram 1500s and even Dakotas that were selling for significantly more. If the same is true for a Chevy 4.8, then definitely go for it. But all else being equal, go for the 5.3. In my experience with the 4.7, I'm perfectly happy with it 90% of the time. But throw a trailer back there, fill the bed with cargo and then go run 70 mph on I10, and I find myself wishing for either 4.55 rear gears or the extra torque of a 5.7 so it could stay in OD1 (5th gear in tow/haul mode which is 4th gear in normal mode) rather than have to lock out overdrive altogether. Now, given that my Dodge 4.7 already has about the same HP/TQ as a Chevy 5.3, I think that problem is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY magnified in a half-ton Chevy with a 4.8. If you never tow, no problem. In fact no real "problem" if you occasionally tow- just be prepared to take your time and get passed a lot. We're spoiled these days, I remember when people would often use 200 ft-lb and a Chevy 292 straight six to tow the kind of loads we expect to tow with 350-400 ft-lb engines these days.

 

[cancov]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
The 4.8 is plenty of motor for what your doing, heck the 4.3 would be too. Skip 4wd if you don't need it, it just adds complexity and reduces fuel mileage.


I am a fan of the 4.3. My first truck was a S-10 with the 4.3. I barked tires all over the high school parking lot. Young and dumb. On a more recent note, our fleet Chevrolet Express vans (the short ones not the long ones) have the 4.3. Very responsive to that load. I actually loaded 33 squares of shingles on a palet in the back one time and though it was sluggish, it wasn't bad. On another note, these vans get about 17-18 MPG. I wouldn't mind getting one of the Express vans for my wife and the kids. Plenty of room for passengers and groceries and such, plus the reliability of the 4.3 and with that mileage, that competes with the mini-vans of today and be better fortified in a larger van.

I think the 4.8 may be suffice for my needs, but I do see the points they all are making for the 5.3 and the Crew Cab. This is great, keep it up.

 

[A_A_G]

Friends and family with the following:
01 Silverado extended cab
02 Silverado extended cab
08 Silverado extended cab
08 Silverado crew cab
08 Tahoe

They all are 4x2 with the 4.8. That engine imo is plenty for all of them except the Tahoe. I would not hesitate to buy one with the 4.8 if the price is right.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
After reading all the posts, let me just say this:

1.) Skip the 4.8 if at all possible. Not that it's a bad engine, it's a good engine. The reason is simple - the 5.3 delivers plenty more power and torque and gets BETTER fuel economy. Yes, that is true. Not a lot better, but better and with more power is a winning hand.

2.) Ignore the AFM comments, the system is reliable and works seamlessly..you don't even know its working unless you look at the dash display. This is not the same system as the old 1981 era Cadil1ac V8-6-4.

I had one of the new body style 2007 Silverado's(GMT900). It was a 1500 Extended Cab 4WD w/ 5.3L( w/ AFM ). It was also a 1LT with the Z71 package. It was a very nice truck. No mechanical issues and the AFM was seamless unlike MDS in my Dodge Ram. You absolutely could not tell when it was on/off unless you had the DIC on to tell you. The only thing I did not like was the seat fabric as it was a lint magnet. You couldn't clean it so with such dark material they always looked dirty and my vehicles are kept spotless. Seat covers solved it. If the only gripe you have is seat material I would say that is a good indication it is a good vehicle.

I also agree wholeheartedly that it makes little sense to get a 4.8L. MPG is as good or better with the 5.3L and the more power in a full sized truck the better. As said ^^^ it isn't that the 4.8L is a bad motor or anything but the 5.3L is more appropriate for a big heavy truck.

If the OP wanted a regular cab, 2WD, model and he never pulled or hauled anything the 4.8L would be ok. However, he wants either an EC or a CC and he will use the truck like a truck at times. He also wants 4WD if possible. 5.3L is the only option of the 2 motors IMO.

To the OP;

Crew Cabs Pro's...

1 - You have independant access to the rear seat. No need to open the front door.
2 - More room in the rear if you will ever have passengers.

Crew Cab Con's...

1 - much higher cost
2 - loss of bed space

I have had Quad Cab( Crew Cab )Rams and Extended Cab Silverados and both are ok. I prefer a true 4 door but the Silverados with the Ext Cab did the job just fine. I really liked the NBS 2007 Silverado with the way GM redesigned the doors to allow them to open fully over to the bed giving you some real access to the rear seat area. On my 05 Silverado the rear doors only open part way and you can get trapped between the doors if parked next to a vehicle or building.

I also liked how they made the rear windows operate the same as regular windows. No more camper type pop out windows like my 05 EC Silverado had. You had to open the rear door to open those windows. On the new model you use a switch like a regular window. BIG improvement.

The NBS 2007+ GM Trucks(GMT900's)are really nice. I think you will like it a lot. I just truly believe it is worth the extra $$$ to get one with a 5.3L. Do a compromise. Spend a little more for the 5.3L but save some $$$ by getting an Extended Cab instead of the Crew Cab.

Good luck.

My 2007...

Excellent writeup, I agree 100%. Nice truck, too. That color is nice and you don't see many at all.


Actually, that color is way too popular around here. I thought for sure I would be different than most ordering it but turns out here it is one of the most popular colors.

Now I drive a Silver Dodge Ram. Has to be the most popular color for the Ram next to Black. I hate looking like everyone else.

Couldn't pass up the deal I got on it though so color preference had to be set aside.

About a year after I got the 07 Silverado I was at the dealer and was looking at the new trucks as my truck was being serviced. Came across a very dark metalic maroon color that I absolutely loved. As I recall it was called dark chery metalic or something similar. I don't see it being offered anymore but man I wish that was offered when I got that Silverado. Hands down it would have been the color I ordered.

 

[SteveSRT8]

We have a few Silverados and find the 4.8 vs. 5.3 debate almost funny. There is very little difference.

Get some shorter gears! A smaller ext cab with 3.73's is a joy to drive, and flat out runs. With 3.23's it is a different truck, sluggish, etc.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: cancov
All are very good points.

NHHEMI...Did the extended cab satisfy any rear-riding passengers. I have a 9 month old and we're again expecting in February which involves car seats and such. I'm thinking the Crew Cab will be best, but as others have pointed out the extended cab is cheaper.


I don't usually have rear seat passengers but when I do they are usually average sized adults for the most part and they had enough room in the Extended Cab. If the driver and front seat pasenger are both 6' and the rear seat passengers are 6'+ you might have some leg room issues. I am 6' 3" and had 6'+ passengers behind me a couple times. I had to slide the seat up some but it was never any real problem. I wouldn't want to drive for 24 hours like that but 3-4 or so is not a big deal. Every day and/or on long trips though would be. The occassional trip it can be dealt with.

Obviously there is not as much rear seat room as a true 4-door but it was quite a bit of room. For kids riding in the back there is more than enough room. The only issue I see for you is the hassle of the doors for loading the young kids. Other than that I say the Ext Cab would be just fine.

Maybe this will help( some )?

This will kind of show you the room you have in the rear as best as I can with the photos I have plus one I borrowed...

This shot will show you just how far out of the way you can open the rear door...

Once you get that rear door opened up all the way it actually gives you more access to the rear seating area than the Crew Cab door setup IMO. It is just the hassle of having to open the front door and leave it open while putting stuff/kids in the back.

I went from 2 Quad Cab( Crew Cab )Ram's to 2 Extended Cab Silverados and now back to a Quad Cab Ram. As much as I like the true 4 doors I have to say if Dodge offered an Extended Cab I would go that route as it is actually a pretty big $$$ savings and the Extended Cab gets the job done. Truth be told it isn't that much of a room difference between the Extended Cab and the Crew Cab in the rear seat area. ONly those with long legs really will be inconvenienced.

 

[cancov]

Thanks NHHEMI.

I was talking to a buddy of mine yesterday about the Crew Cab vs the Extended Cab. In our area, CC are everywhere, and every now-and-again you'll see an EC with the 6' bed. I'm not exactly sure if it's the concept of going against the grain or that I really like the look of the EC with the 6' bed that makes me look longer than I do with CC.

I'm picturing a Sierra/Silverado, 2WD, Extended cab with the leveling kit on the front to make the rear and front the same height. My brother's Sierra, NON Z71, 4WD, was lower in the front when he got it. He ordered the Summit leveling kit spacers for about $120 and it looked like a different truck. Took us about 2-2.5 hours with minimal tools. We have done suspension alterations on our trucks in the past so our "expertise" may have assisted with that time period. But I would definantly have to pick the front up.

Other than that, if the wheels that came on the truck were the 17's or 18's, I would look for some OEM 20's. These large trucks just look right with the 20's to me.

 

[Hokiefyd]

If you do the leveling kit, please remember to re-aim the head lamps to compensate.

My co-worker with the '09 Z71 I mentioned earlier had a leveling kit put on the front of his. It looked nice. I think his had either 17" or 18" wheels on it (I don't recall).

 

[bigmike]

I have an 06 extended cab. I wish my doors opened that far - that looks really nice. I'm not complaining about mine though, I really love it and the sales guys at the time I purchased mine were REALLY pushing a 4 door. I was adamantly opposed to a 4 door though because I didn't want any loss of bed space. I don't regret it at all.

 

[addyguy]

I really like the 'suicide' door set-up on the extended cab Chevies - that would be a selling point for me right there.

Wife's uncle has a crew cab 4.7L Ram, and it feels like there is a lot less room to get into the back, even if there isn't.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
We have a few Silverados and find the 4.8 vs. 5.3 debate almost funny. There is very little difference.

Get some shorter gears! A smaller ext cab with 3.73's is a joy to drive, and flat out runs. With 3.23's it is a different truck, sluggish, etc.


Interesting, I actually prefer the highway gears. I have 3.23's in my truck now and I would go taller if I could.

But I don't tow more than 3k pounds ever and even with the 4.3 it makes short work of it. I don't really think its all that sluggish, well for a truck its not a sports car.

I was pricing out new F150's and noticed Ford allows you to get the 3.15's now with the Ecoboost on some models, I'd order that, heck I'd get 2.93's if they offered them.

 

[MrCritical]

I can't tell you why one AFM vehicle has problems and the next one doesn't. Neither can the engineers who designed the system.

But here's what I do know. The way you know you have AFM problems is that the engine starts raising [censored]. And on a certain percentage of those "raising [censored]", the "[censored]" goes away as soon as you change the oil. And if you change the oil every 3000-4000 miles, it never comes back.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
We have a few Silverados and find the 4.8 vs. 5.3 debate almost funny. There is very little difference.

Get some shorter gears! A smaller ext cab with 3.73's is a joy to drive, and flat out runs. With 3.23's it is a different truck, sluggish, etc.


Interesting, I actually prefer the highway gears. I have 3.23's in my truck now and I would go taller if I could.

But I don't tow more than 3k pounds ever and even with the 4.3 it makes short work of it. I don't really think its all that sluggish, well for a truck its not a sports car.

I was pricing out new F150's and noticed Ford allows you to get the 3.15's now with the Ecoboost on some models, I'd order that, heck I'd get 2.93's if they offered them.


I'm with you. I prefeered my 3.55 geared Rams to my current 3.92 geared one and I absolutely preferred my 3.42 geared 05 Silverado to my 3.73 geared 07.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: cancov
Thanks NHHEMI.

I was talking to a buddy of mine yesterday about the Crew Cab vs the Extended Cab. In our area, CC are everywhere, and every now-and-again you'll see an EC with the 6' bed. I'm not exactly sure if it's the concept of going against the grain or that I really like the look of the EC with the 6' bed that makes me look longer than I do with CC.

I'm picturing a Sierra/Silverado, 2WD, Extended cab with the leveling kit on the front to make the rear and front the same height. My brother's Sierra, NON Z71, 4WD, was lower in the front when he got it. He ordered the Summit leveling kit spacers for about $120 and it looked like a different truck. Took us about 2-2.5 hours with minimal tools. We have done suspension alterations on our trucks in the past so our "expertise" may have assisted with that time period. But I would definantly have to pick the front up.

Other than that, if the wheels that came on the truck were the 17's or 18's, I would look for some OEM 20's. These large trucks just look right with the 20's to me.


Stay with the 17's and just go a little bigger. 20's stink. The ride is not as good and the tires cost more. I wish like heck that my Ram came with the 17's and not these 20's. I am still looking to downgrade to OE 17's but the 20's popularity fad with the Ram owners is changing and the 17's are popular again so I am having trouble finding a good deal.

The OE 20" tire option size for the new Silverado's is 275/55R-20. That setup has an overall diameter of 31.90. The OE 265/70R-17 setup has a 31.60 overall diameter. So only a .30 height difference. It is your eyes playing tricks on you that the 20's are really that much bigger. You could actually upsize to 275/70R-17's and have a taller setup that will fill the wheel well better than the OE 20's, give you a better ride, cost less, and most of all not screw up your speedo too bad. The overall diameter of those is 32.15. The OE 265/65R-18 tire setup is actually shorter than the OE 17's at 31.56.

Lots of people think because the wheel is bigger that the overall diameter/height will be bigger/taller too. Doesn't work that way lots of the time. You really have to go huge with 20's+ to actually be bigger. The 20's have a much shorter sidewall so it makes the overall diameter/height shorter than you would think.

 

[hattaresguy]

I hate the big tires they put on newer trucks, mine has 17's and I wish they were 16's.

The tires cost to much, wear out fast and you can't get good truck tires in those large sizes. Also if you drive on unimproved roads a lot those big wheels put a lot of stress on the suspension since the tires don't have a lot of sidewall for flex.

But its all what you want.