The addition of GM's 5.3L V8 to the HUMMER H3 Alpha for 2008 has resulted in some trickle-down goodness for the SUV's pickup truck platform-mate, the Chevy Colorado. PickupTruck.com is reporting that the smaller Chevy truck will indeed receive the same infusion of V8 power in 2008. We've driven both the Silverado and the GMC Sierra with that engine, and we liked it a lot in the big trucks. Imagining it in the Colorado has grins spreading across our faces, as it will certainly add a good amount of pop, and with the 5.3's cylinder deactivation system, it should also be respectable at the pump, considering it'll have a lot less truck to move around than with the GMT900.

The addition of the 295-horse V8 will catapult the Colorado to the top of the heap in the midsize pickup segment in terms of power, edging the new Dodge Dakota (290 hp), and putting it well beyond the Toyota Tacoma and Ford Ranger (numbers 1 & 2 respectively on the sales charts). GM's been teasing everyone with V8-powered small concept pickups for a while now, and though it won't officially confirm or deny the report (a spokesman only says, "stay tuned"), it sure looks like the General's finally decided to give us the real thing. Good.

awesome, looks like mine will just get slower and slower


women are like cars you have to test drive the new one before you trade in the old one

I'll take one!





How many steps to heaven, Doc?
...Ah, metaphysics.

No turbo diesel?

Damn...

It would be cool if they offered a bare-bones V8 version that could be optioned with body colored bumpers, ZQ8 sport suspension package, 18x8 wheels, G80 locking diff, and a 6 speed manual. Now THAT would be a real animal on the street and be worthy of the SS name.

bah. not even remotely interested. im sure that truck is in the mid 20s with all the options w/ the v8

not to be a dick but they had something increadable with the cyclone/typhoon (sp?) back in like 94...

congrats, their slower and more expensive then they were over 10 years ago... out of a pushrod v6 as well.


http://www.myspace.com/15102113

12.5@116 2.0 60ft

John H [CavalierKid wrote:]bah. not even remotely interested. im sure that truck is in the mid 20s with all the options w/ the v8

not to be a dick but they had something increadable with the cyclone/typhoon (sp?) back in like 94...

congrats, their slower and more expensive then they were over 10 years ago... out of a pushrod v6 as well.

yeah, id say the dealers/factory will equip most of the v8s with 4 doors, long bed, power everything...many 4wd prob too. im sure a few will escape in the smaller variants, and im sure you could order one any way you want to. after all i saw a reg cab short bed 2wd ford with the v-10 once...


_________________________________________________________________
Looking for something new? How about an off topic forum where you can truly express your opinions without interference of mods or admins?

Join verbalwarfare.com

http://www.verbalwarfare.com/forum.php?referrerid=86

Good news. Wrong decade.
Nissan is putting out pretty much that same HP from their V-6's (G35). It's "dumb American" thinking from the 1960's to make car go fast, put in V8. Instead of what technology can we use to make a better performing motor. The only cool part is the cylinder deactivation system...but again they wouldn't need it if it were a better running 6 (the result is less stuff to break).

Or better yet why not improve the performance of the I5 currently in the truck. And really wow the automotive world with a 290hp N/A I5 motor...and then offer a Bio Diesel alternative? That would be impressive. Putting a V8 in an S10 is an awesome idea.....for 1991



"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net

John H [CavalierKid wrote:]bah. not even remotely interested. im sure that truck is in the mid 20s with all the options w/ the v8

not to be a dick but they had something increadable with the cyclone/typhoon (sp?) back in like 94...

congrats, their slower and more expensive then they were over 10 years ago... out of a pushrod v6 as well.

The Nissan Altima 3.5SE has a curb weight of 3334, where as the extended Colorado is 3506 (these are both automatic weights).

Nissan Altima - 3334/270=12.3 lbs per hp
Colorad Ext Cab + i5/ v8 power -3506/295= 11.8 lbs per hp
Colorado Reg Cab + i5/ v8 power - 3302/295 =11.2 lbs per hp

So the v8 colorado will have a better power-to-weight than a Altima that does 5.9 with a manual and 6.6 with it's auto. So we should expect good numbers.

As for the Typoon or Cyclone, curb weight on those bad boys was 3822 and output was OFFICIALLY 290, tho the wikipedia page I just linked to puts the power ABOVE 300. So...

3822/290 (official weight)= 13.1
3822/30= 12.7
3822/325= 11.8

So to me, it seems the V8 Colorado, even in extended cab form, is a worth successor to the Cylone/Typhoon.

Jookycola wrote:Good news. Wrong decade.
Nissan is putting out pretty much that same HP from their V-6's (G35). It's "dumb American" thinking from the 1960's to make car go fast, put in V8. Instead of what technology can we use to make a better performing motor. The only cool part is the cylinder deactivation system...but again they wouldn't need it if it were a better running 6 (the result is less stuff to break).

Or better yet why not improve the performance of the I5 currently in the truck. And really wow the automotive world with a 290hp N/A I5 motor...and then offer a Bio Diesel alternative? That would be impressive. Putting a V8 in an S10 is an awesome idea.....for 1991

You don't know what you're talking about. Nissan's own V8 that it puts in it's trucks is 5.6L, 317 hp. It's 56.6 hp per liter, where as the Colorado V8 is 55.6 hp per liter. Not a big difference. Especially when we all know well the Chevy 5.3 puts out 300hp in other applications (which makes it's hp per liter identical to the Nissan's).

So why doesn't Nissan then just put a better performing V6 into it's trucks? Did you ever stop to think about that?


---

I'm sure that as a daily driver the V8 Colorado will be completely useless and have it's a** handed to it by the 242hp five banger truck in nearly all races. However, I like the idea of making a lot of noise and driving a vehicle with slightly psychotic handling. Hopefully it will be available with no options for those of us who like to actually DRIVE instead of you know... lounge around in an entertainment center on wheels.

I do reluctantly have to agree that the horsepower gotten out of a 5.3 is pathetic. 295? Imagine only getting 122 hp out of the 2.2 Ecotec or if Toyota only could get 84hp out of the 1.5 VVT-i in it's Yaris. If the 5.3 could crank out as much HP per liter as a Honda Fit, it'd crank out 385hp. Last time I checked the Fit wasn't the pinnacle of technology either. Also, by making smaller and more powerful engines like Honda or Toyota does they could make more fuel economical cars (A 1.4 liter Ecotec would still make 140hp for example, so the Cobalt/G5 would drive the same and offer much better fuel economy) and real monstrously powerful 600-700hp engines for the Corvette and Camaro. Isn't that what we all want?

There's no reason at all why a normally aspirated everyday engine can't make 75hp per liter and a top of line N/A engine can't make 100hp per liter. Add a Turbo or SC and all sorts of wonderful things happen.

Jookycola wrote:Good news. Wrong decade.
Nissan is putting out pretty much that same HP from their V-6's (G35). It's "dumb American" thinking from the 1960's to make car go fast, put in V8. Instead of what technology can we use to make a better performing motor. The only cool part is the cylinder deactivation system...but again they wouldn't need it if it were a better running 6 (the result is less stuff to break).

Or better yet why not improve the performance of the I5 currently in the truck. And really wow the automotive world with a 290hp N/A I5 motor...and then offer a Bio Diesel alternative? That would be impressive. Putting a V8 in an S10 is an awesome idea.....for 1991

nipsan might have the HP numbers , but they only got about half the TQ

so that blows that idea outta the water

Knoxfire wrote:I'm sure that as a daily driver the V8 Colorado will be completely useless and have it's a** handed to it by the 242hp five banger truck in nearly all races. However, I like the idea of making a lot of noise and driving a vehicle with slightly psychotic handling. Hopefully it will be available with no options for those of us who like to actually DRIVE instead of you know... lounge around in an entertainment center on wheels.

I do reluctantly have to agree that the horsepower gotten out of a 5.3 is pathetic. 295? Imagine only getting 122 hp out of the 2.2 Ecotec or if Toyota only could get 84hp out of the 1.5 VVT-i in it's Yaris. If the 5.3 could crank out as much HP per liter as a Honda Fit, it'd crank out 385hp. Last time I checked the Fit wasn't the pinnacle of technology either. Also, by making smaller and more powerful engines like Honda or Toyota does they could make more fuel economical cars (A 1.4 liter Ecotec would still make 140hp for example, so the Cobalt/G5 would drive the same and offer much better fuel economy) and real monstrously powerful 600-700hp engines for the Corvette and Camaro. Isn't that what we all want?

There's no reason at all why a normally aspirated everyday engine can't make 75hp per liter and a top of line N/A engine can't make 100hp per liter. Add a Turbo or SC and all sorts of wonderful things happen.

So using your argument, then all car engines are junk. My sportbike makes 218 hp/liter (139/.636). So 2.2 Ecotec should make 479hp. A 5.3L should make 1155hp, and a 7.0 Corvette should make 1526!




---

AGuSTiN wrote:
So using your argument, then all car engines are junk. My sportbike makes 218 hp/liter (139/.636). So 2.2 Ecotec should make 479hp. A 5.3L should make 1155hp, and a 7.0 Corvette should make 1526!

Yes.

*grabs the engine in his Sunfire and tosses it in the scrapheap* GARBAGE!!!!! *sets his car on fire* RUBBISH!!!!!!!!

I feel better now

What I'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that after all these years they're still finding it "complicated" to do what the Japanese seem to do easily. Whenever I hear the word "it's complicated" I know there's a lie that's coming. It's like the whole Diesel thing in the US. I checked the EPA guidelines myself. I crosschecked them with the emissions of European Diesels. The euro cars pass the tests in the US. So why don't we have diesels? Why can't we get tough torquey engines that make 50mpg? We have heavier cars with more crap in them. We need them more than Europe does, and it's not like Europe has less stringent pollution standards than we do. So what's the deal? Every time I hear an excuse from the carmakers, it begins with "It's complicated". Yeah...

It's gotten better over the years, but with todays technology there's no excuse for such piddling performance out of cars. We could do better, we deserve better. I don't believe a single word the car companies throw at me. Not a single one.

But you're simplying the subject, and confusing it, at the same time.

For example, did you know the Corvette gets damn near the same gas mileage as a Honda S2000?

Go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov and look it up. Corvette owners report 18.3 mpg and S2000 20.5, yet the Corvette has 3 times the displacement.

Getting incredible hp from the smallest engine possible is not always the brightest idea. There's a reason you don't see 300hp Neon engines pulling around Dakotas or Rams. You need torque. Torque is by and large a product of displacement.

Look at this Detroit Diesel page...

http://www.detroitdiesel.com/engines/series60/specs.aspx

14L, 6 cyl making only 400-500 hp, but 1500+ lb/ft torque. You have to pick the right tool for the job.

I honestly fail to see what you think the Japanese are doing so well with their engines as compared to the Americans. When I went out to buy a new pickup, the Honda Ridgeline and it's V6 were a joke. It was more expensive, less powerful and yet got the same MPG as the Crew Cab Silverado I purchased. Ridgeline was also ugly.


---

AGuSTiN wrote:

John H [CavalierKid wrote:]bah. not even remotely interested. im sure that truck is in the mid 20s with all the options w/ the v8

not to be a dick but they had something increadable with the cyclone/typhoon (sp?) back in like 94...

congrats, their slower and more expensive then they were over 10 years ago... out of a pushrod v6 as well.

The Nissan Altima 3.5SE has a curb weight of 3334, where as the extended Colorado is 3506 (these are both automatic weights).

Nissan Altima - 3334/270=12.3 lbs per hp
Colorad Ext Cab + i5/ v8 power -3506/295= 11.8 lbs per hp
Colorado Reg Cab + i5/ v8 power - 3302/295 =11.2 lbs per hp

So the v8 colorado will have a better power-to-weight than a Altima that does 5.9 with a manual and 6.6 with it's auto. So we should expect good numbers.

As for the Typoon or Cyclone, curb weight on those bad boys was 3822 and output was OFFICIALLY 290, tho the wikipedia page I just linked to puts the power ABOVE 300. So...

3822/290 (official weight)= 13.1
3822/30= 12.7
3822/325= 11.8

So to me, it seems the V8 Colorado, even in extended cab form, is a worth successor to the Cylone/Typhoon.

Jookycola wrote:Good news. Wrong decade.
Nissan is putting out pretty much that same HP from their V-6's (G35). It's "dumb American" thinking from the 1960's to make car go fast, put in V8. Instead of what technology can we use to make a better performing motor. The only cool part is the cylinder deactivation system...but again they wouldn't need it if it were a better running 6 (the result is less stuff to break).

Or better yet why not improve the performance of the I5 currently in the truck. And really wow the automotive world with a 290hp N/A I5 motor...and then offer a Bio Diesel alternative? That would be impressive. Putting a V8 in an S10 is an awesome idea.....for 1991

You don't know what you're talking about. Nissan's own V8 that it puts in it's trucks is 5.6L, 317 hp. It's 56.6 hp per liter, where as the Colorado V8 is 55.6 hp per liter. Not a big difference. Especially when we all know well the Chevy 5.3 puts out 300hp in other applications (which makes it's hp per liter identical to the Nissan's).

So why doesn't Nissan then just put a better performing V6 into it's trucks? Did you ever stop to think about that?

yeah an under rated turbo 4.3 of 10+ years ago. im saying this isnt impressive for 10 years worth of technology. and the heavy weight is caused by the awd system. whats the weight on the nissan and colorado with the v8 option AND 4x4?

what im saying is if gm used their current turbo technology, hell even on the I5 rather then a v8, it would make the same if not more power. the solstice/sky is makign like 20hp less from their turbo 2.0 compaired to the cyclones turbo 4.3. hence the 10 year technology gap

gm needs to realize that there is alot more alternatives rather then sticking a v8 in.


http://www.myspace.com/15102113

12.5@116 2.0 60ft

Nonono... I know how torque works. Roughly put, the more torque you have the less the engine has to "work". So a high torque engine's fuel economy is less likely to be affected by weight than a low torque engine. I fully realize that a tiny engine in a heavy car will yield less fuel economy than a bigger engine because the engine has to struggle to pull it. That's why you don't see motorcycle engines in cars. However, there's ways to cheat and make a small torquey engine. A diesel is one way, increasing the stroke is another. And I realize that the carmakers are not solely responsible. They're shackled by mileage, emissions and crash tests. It's not easy making a car these days.

What do the Japanese do that the American carmakers don't? I guess it's that if you buy a base Civic, it'll feel like a sporty car, but if you buy a base Cobalt it feels... mushy... watered down. I don't know. My 2002 Sunfire handles like a dump truck compared to my extremely worn out 1990 Mustang. I can take curves with the stang that the Sunfire could never tackle without a lot of braking. To me that's inexcusable.

You would really rather have a turbo I5 than a V8? A V8 has lots of untapped potential, where-as a turbo's I5 is much closer to it's breaking point.

Superchargers, even the simplest ones, add 50% in hp. 290*1.5 is 435hp. I don' know if you remember, but the original concept Trailblazer SS was a TWIN-turbo, 400hp I6.

http://www.motortrend.com/future/concept_cars/112_0203_chevrolet_trailblazer_turbo/

At a 68% jump from the stock 270hp, an I5 with the same percentage jump comes to 355hp, a # definitely well known to be within reach of naturally-aspirated 5.3L's.

Also, given the years of production of Cyclone's and Typhoon's, they are ODB-1. Emissions history will tell you things have gotten much tighter since then. Remember, old Chargers , Mustangs and Camaros made 400-500hp 40 years ago, but they're not even close to passing modern emissions standards. Doing that kind of power while keeping the air clean is where a lot of engineering man-power and know-how go.

I don't know how much more explaining I need to do to help you guys out.


---

You won't get any argument from me about American suspension tuning. I once rented a Toyota Echo, and while it still left with the impression that it's a piece of crap, it was fun to toss around. My best friends works for Toyota, and all the cars he's leased ..Camry, Matrix, Scion TC, were a blast.

But I thought we were talking about engines


---

jesus christ, i really didnt think they were going to end up doing this...thought I had my new truck all picked out...but this could change things, especially if it comes in a 5 or 6 speed manual...

I look at it this way, think about how easy another engine swap would be....compared to the people putting LS1's in the 5 bangers...



http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/chevrolet/colorado/v808.html

I want the cruz concept on that page


Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, June 08, 2007 1:06 PM

Um, i never compared Nissans V8 to Chevy's V8. I said the VQ series (that's a VEE-SIX motor) from Nissan matches that HP (give-or-take) the V8 that Chevy is going to put in the Colorado. The 242hp the I5 makes could be upped without "pussing out" by just adding 2 more cylinders.

GM should have refined the I5 before just takining the bitch route and droping in a V8. I think if GM wants people to stop and go "Wow! GM is coming back!" They should up the ante on engineering...and i feel they missed their chance to really show something amazing by refining their newest and most technological motor in their aresenal the (I-5 motor)

I don't hate the idea of the V8 in the truck...it will without a doubt be a segment killer. But would have been more impressive to see the already brilliant I5 motor made even better.



"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net

But it doesn't match the torque. What is so hard to understand about that? A v8 will move a Colorado, or any car, stoplight to stoplight better than any strung-out 6, AND, have more hp for racing.

The fact that you advocate an I7 proves you're talking out your as$. Not only do inlines longer than 6 have significant engineering issues, but there is a REASON why the I6 isn't in a Colorado. IT DOESN'T FIT.

http://transcripts.usatoday.com/Chats/transcript.aspx?c=38

Quote:


Princeton, NJ: I've read about the benefits of inline 6-cylinder engines vs V-6 engines, such as no balancing issues and a high-revving nature with an inline type engine. If that's the case, how come auto companies don't manufacturer inline 8 cylinder engines?
James Healey: Inline 8s, aka straight 8s, are too long for most applications. Installed fore-aft they'd shove the transmission back into the passenger compartment and take up more space than you'd like. Side-side they'd be tough to fit between the fenders of most cars. And their length amplifies the issues that are present in inline 6s but more-or-less adequately dealt with. For example, the cylinder head of an inline 6 is long enough that it has to be carefully desinged to cope with the expansion and shrinkage that come with the engine heating up and cooling down. The extra engineering and machining precision needed to make sure the head won't get out of alignment or out -of-spec from the hot-cold cycling becomes more of a challenge and expense on a straight 8.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?p=617835

Quote:


The Atlas 4.2L will never be available in a pickup truck, it's too expensive. That on top of the fact that it's simply physically too large to fit in the GMT-355. GMT-355 needs the E85-Capable 5.3L with AFM. They also need to have a hybrid option when the new hybrid transmission production starts to ramp up.

The LOGICAL choice, when faced with spending tons of money researching and endurance testing a blown I5 or simply dropping in a proven 5.3L V8, is OBVIOUS.


---

AGuSTiN wrote:The fact that you advocate an I7 proves you're talking out your as$. Not only do inlines longer than 6 have significant engineering issues, but there is a REASON why the I6 isn't in a Colorado. IT DOESN'T FIT.

HaHa.
You know with all this V8,V6,I7,I56,7,8,9,10, 22 talk i think it was not that the guy is an idiot, nor suggesting an I7. I asume when he said "add two more cylinders" he was thinking V6+2=V8. When i believe he meant "puss out and add 3 cylinders"

I could be wrong, but i think you took that a bit more literaly than it was meant. Yes I think GM could do ALOT more with the I5 before "pussing out" with the V8. But with that V8 you get the fuel economy of a 4 banger and torque on demand of a V8. This motor and a compact pick-up are a match made in heaven. And who in their right mind thinks the VQ motors have no torque???

I promise a G35/350Z will smoke a Colorado. Hell they are in Mustang GT (V8) territory as far as acceleration. Drive one before you say they have no torque. The same VQ in an Altima is seriously de-tuned, there is no comparisson. The 3.5/3.7 VQ V6 motor is heads and shoulders above any motor at GM as far as versatility.






2007 Corvette Z51 | Suzuki Swift GTi SCCA racer | 2008 Edge