Question about My New truck!

#1

Well I just got a new 2004 Silverado long bed LS. It has everything I could ever need in it, I can hit a button and the side mirrors fold in. I went with the 5.3 L engine. The sales person told me it has 295 HP is this right?
It runs like a scolded dog. But it doesn't seam to have the low end power my 2002 Z-71 had with the same engine? Must be the gear ratio. I had the 5.7 in my 2000 Z-71. A friend talked me into the 5.3 in 2002. I could tell the difference in power but it was acceptable. The MPG was worth the trade.

The MPG is better than the 2002 and it was good for what it was. I have been getting an average of 18 to 19 MPG around town. With the price of gas today that's not bad for a full size truck. I fell it would do better if I could kept my led foot of the peddle. I'm amazed they can get that much power and speed out of an engine and get that good gas mileage. I can't wait to take it on a long trip to see what kind of mileage I can get.

I wish my push guard of the 2002 would fit the 2004 can't have everything.

#2

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:38:01 -0400, "GKShadow" <gkshadow (AT) wowway (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

Well I just got a new 2004 Silverado long bed LS. It has everything I could ever need in it, I can hit a button and the side mirrors fold in. I went with the 5.3 L engine. The sales person told me it has 295 HP is this right?
It runs like a scolded dog. But it doesn't seam to have the low end power my 2002 Z-71 had with the same engine? Must be the gear ratio. I had the 5.7 in my 2000 Z-71. A friend talked me into the 5.3 in 2002. I could tell the difference in power but it was acceptable. The MPG was worth the trade.

Was the 2000 a 1/2-ton? If so, you didn't have the 5.7, it was
discontinued in the 1/2-ton trucks in 99 with the new design. Your
truck has 285 HP, the 295 rating is in the vans. I bet the 2002 was a
3.73, with the Z71 package. If the 2004 isn't a Z71, the base gears
are 3.42 or even higher (lower number), accounting for the better
economy.

My first sentence MAY be wrong, if the 3/4-ton was offered with the
Z71 package (I doubt it though)...

Quote:

The MPG is better than the 2002 and it was good for what it was. I have been getting an average of 18 to 19 MPG around town. With the price of gas today that's not bad for a full size truck. I fell it would do better if I could kept my led foot of the peddle. I'm amazed they can get that much power and speed out of an engine and get that good gas mileage. I can't wait to take it on a long trip to see what kind of mileage I can get.

I wish my push guard of the 2002 would fit the 2004 can't have everything.

#3

LARRY929 (AT) webtv (DOT) net wrote:

Quote:

Must be nice to be able to afford new trks, the best I can do is a
88Blazer but it has new motor &tranny in it. Also got an 85 K20 3/4 ton
!39xxx mi on it motor neve been apart runns great finally had to put new
clutch in it stuff just dont last lol lol.

I have never bought a new truck, but if my wife wouldn't kill me I'd love to
have an old k5. Took my drivers test in my parents 79, never could talk
them into letting me drive it topless though.

#4

LARRY929 (AT) webtv (DOT) net wrote:

Quote:

I aint about to take the top off mine it dont leak and i dont want it to
start. Thats what happens with T tops off& on ruins the gaskets.
I always told them since it didn't have any carpet and had vinly seats there

wasn't anything to hurt getting wet. If only GM would bring back the two
door, removable top blazers I'd have to buy one, until then I'll just keep
what I have now, don't see any new ones I like.

#5

Must be nice to be able to afford new trks, the best I can do is a
88Blazer but it has new motor &tranny in it. Also got an 85 K20 3/4 ton
!39xxx mi on it motor neve been apart runns great finally had to put new
clutch in it stuff just dont last lol lol.

#6

I aint about to take the top off mine it dont leak and i dont want it to
start. Thats what happens with T tops off& on ruins the gaskets.

#7

"Mike Levy" <mike-newsgroups (AT) levyclan (DOT) nospam.us> wrote

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:38:01 -0400, "GKShadow" <gkshadow (AT) wowway (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

Well I just got a new 2004 Silverado long bed LS. It has everything I could ever need in it, I can hit a button and the side mirrors fold in. I went with the 5.3 L engine. The sales person told me it has 295 HP is this right?
It runs like a scolded dog. But it doesn't seam to have the low end power my 2002 Z-71 had with the same engine? Must be the gear ratio. I had the 5.7 in my 2000 Z-71. A friend talked me into the 5.3 in 2002. I could tell the difference in power but it was acceptable. The MPG was worth the trade.

Was the 2000 a 1/2-ton? If so, you didn't have the 5.7, it was
discontinued in the 1/2-ton trucks in 99 with the new design. Your
truck has 285 HP, the 295 rating is in the vans. I bet the 2002 was a
3.73, with the Z71 package. If the 2004 isn't a Z71, the base gears
are 3.42 or even higher (lower number), accounting for the better
economy.

My first sentence MAY be wrong, if the 3/4-ton was offered with the
Z71 package (I doubt it though)...

Quote:

The MPG is better than the 2002 and it was good for what it was. I have been getting an average of 18 to 19 MPG around town. With the price of gas today that's not bad for a full size truck. I fell it would do better if I could kept my led foot of the peddle. I'm amazed they can get that much power and speed out of an engine and get that good gas mileage. I can't wait to take it on a long trip to see what kind of mileage I can get.

I wish my push guard of the 2002 would fit the 2004 can't have everything.

The 98 GMC & 2000 GMC were 1/2 ton HD with toe pacages. It said it was a 5.7 under the hood of the 98. And the 2000 said it was a 5.3 under the hood. The dealer booklet said it was 300 HP. The 2002 Chevy was a 5.7 300 HP. 1 Ton Express Van. The 2004 Chevy is a 5.3 295 HP. It would out run any of them, but it isn't a 4X4.
I do remember having the opption of the 5.7 in the 2000. I went with the 5.3 because of gas milage.

#8

Yes!
It is nice. They weren't given to me. I work 55 + hours a week to get them.
Being a Tool Maker in Michigan doesn't heart either. When the hours aren't there in the Tool trade, I do side jobs, like Construction & Cement work.
<LARRY929 (AT) webtv (DOT) net> wrote

Must be nice to be able to afford new trks, the best I can do is a
88Blazer but it has new motor &tranny in it. Also got an 85 K20 3/4 ton
!39xxx mi on it motor neve been apart runns great finally had to put new
clutch in it stuff just dont last lol lol.

#9

GMC Gremlin wrote:

Quote:

Uhm.... mine leaked when it was a virgin top and stoped after I removed
it. Now I have a cloth top and my hard top and neither leak....

GMC Gremlin

LARRY929 (AT) webtv (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:28857-412BE1D8-13 (AT) storefull-3176 (DOT) bay.webtv.net...
I aint about to take the top off mine it dont leak and i dont want it to
start. Thats what happens with T tops off& on ruins the gaskets.

Old thread revival.

My parents were too cheap to pay for carpet or cloth seats so I figured if
theirs leaked it wasn't going to hurt anything anyway, the vinyl seats and
rubber floor covering are pretty water resistant.

#10

Uhm.... mine leaked when it was a virgin top and stoped after I removed it.
Now I have a cloth top and my hard top and neither leak....

GMC Gremlin

<LARRY929 (AT) webtv (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

I aint about to take the top off mine it dont leak and i dont want it to
start. Thats what happens with T tops off& on ruins the gaskets.