S-10 CC/Blazer vs Avalanche

TexasBlaZeR2 · Post by **TexasBlaZeR2** » Mon May 22, 2006 6:17 pm

According to the EPA estimates, Crew Cabs and BlaZeR2s only gets 1 mpg less both city/highway than a Chevy Avalanche. However, those numbers often don't tell the real truth. We had a 98 Silverado and it was a real gas guzzler. Does anyone know the real story? Is the difference between a 4.3 Vortec V6 and a 5.3 350 really that close? I average 16.5 most of the time driving with the factory tires and a couple of MPG less with the KOs.

Some dealers are offering close to $10,000 off the price of loaded Silverados and Avalanches these days. My fully loaded 2005 BlaZeR2 only has every available option and only about 15,000 miles on it so I figure I could still get a good price for it. I am considering moving up to the Avalanche if I can figure out how to swing it financially.

Does anyone have experience with a Silverado/Avalanche? Looking for opinions and feeback on this one. The Z71's with 17 inch rims sure do look sweet.

BobbleSmitty · Post by **BobbleSmitty** » Mon May 22, 2006 7:30 pm

So ya know, the 5.3L isn't a 350. The 5.7L that used to go in the corvette C5 and the silverado/tahoe/suburban before '98 was the 350. But I would have to say, my buddy just got an Avalanche and he gets just about the same gas mileage as I do in my Crewcab in the city and just a little less on the highway. So if the price is right and you wanna go full size you wouldn't be spending much more on gas.

Post by **HenryJ** » Mon May 22, 2006 7:33 pm

Mellowyellow and Conman both went to Avalanches. Last I heard from Bennie, he was enjoying the ride and extra room.

TexasBlaZeR2 · Post by **TexasBlaZeR2** » Tue May 23, 2006 2:02 am

Sorry...close to a 350. What does the 5.3 equate to in cubic inches?

04crewvt · Post by **04crewvt** » Tue May 23, 2006 2:28 am

Doing the conversion gives you 323.43 cubic inches

F9K9 · Post by **F9K9** » Tue May 23, 2006 2:49 am

04crewvt wrote:Doing the conversion gives you 323.43 cubic inches

You are probably correct but, I keep hearing a number from the past........327

top_sgt · Post by **top_sgt** » Tue May 23, 2006 3:00 am

f9k9 wrote:
04crewvt wrote:Doing the conversion gives you 323.43 cubic inches
You are probably correct but, I keep hearing a number from the past........327

yes.... 327.....twas a very good number!!!!!!!

04crewvt · Post by **04crewvt** » Tue May 23, 2006 3:53 pm

Close enough for government work that's for sure. The displacement numbers are almost always rounded to the nearest whole # and yes the 327 was a great motor. If you do the conversion the other way you get this
327 cubic inch = 5.358 liter. Basically they are the same block design just measured slightly differently

Post by **Walt** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:56 pm

Isn't the engine/package code for the 5.3 liter engine LS1?

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Tue May 23, 2006 8:35 pm

wamason wrote:Isn't the engine/package code for the 5.3 liter engine LS1?

RPO codes for the 5.3L.

LM7 (iron block, low-emissions) applications:

Cadillac Escalade
Chevrolet Avalanche
Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana
Chevrolet Silverado 1500-2500/GMC Sierra 1500-2500
Chevrolet Suburban/GMC Yukon XL
Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon

LM4 (all-aluminum) applications:

Chevrolet TrailBlazer EXT
GMC Envoy XL
2004 Chevrolet SSR

L33 applications:

Chevrolet Silverado 1500-2500/GMC Sierra 1500-2500

L59 (flexible-fuel, allowing E85) applications:

Chevrolet Suburban/GMC Yukon XL
Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon

Steve

2kwik4u · Post by **2kwik4u** » Wed May 24, 2006 3:13 am

wamason wrote:Isn't the engine/package code for the 5.3 liter engine LS1?

LS1 was the all aluminum 5.7 in the F-body and Corvette (different years though)

I'd love to find an LM4 for the Xtreme......Power of a V8, weight of a V6......Sadly they are super-extra-uber-expensive to find

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Wed May 24, 2006 11:07 am

I have the LH6 in my Trailblazer.

bwenny247 · Post by **bwenny247** » Sun May 28, 2006 12:01 pm

my dad's 99 silverado with the 5.3L gets 17 MPG on the freeway/highway (75 MPH) and around 15 city....completely stock and he doesn't drive it hard.

Pauleo · Post by **Pauleo** » Mon May 29, 2006 6:28 pm

I don't have an Avalanch, but a Silverado 4-door, 4x4. It has the 5.3L and gets the same gas milage as my S-10 did. Maybe a slight bit better. (I have been doing alot of hauling my trailer around lately so it's been hard to get a true reading.) The extra room is great and compared to MY S-10, this Silverado rides like a Caddy! Love it!!!

Go full size, man! Everybody's doing it! It's the cool thing to do, man! C'mon! You wanna be cool don't ya!

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 5:24 am

If I was in the market for a new truck today and my choice was a crew cab S-10 or a Crew Cab Silverado, I'd choose the Silverado without thinking twice. You really don't gain anything by going smaller since the mileage is the same or worse. You get so much more room, hauling capacity and power with the Silverado that it's a no brainer.

Post by **HenryJ** » Tue May 30, 2006 5:31 am

JimmyDiamond wrote:... You really don't gain anything by going smaller since the mileage is the same or worse...

Mileage is a little better for normal driving and there are some other advantages. The narrower track and shorter wheel base are a big advantage in my terrain.

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 5:48 am

Honestly, I haven't seen any big advantage in mileage between the 4.3 and the 5.3. The only time I've seen a 4.3 do better was in my 02 Reg cab 5-speed ZQ8 S-10. I could get 22 on the highway with it. Otherwise both my 01 Blazer and my 00 Jimmy never got better than 18 mpg on the highway. My dad's 04 Suburban with 3.73s will get 17 on the interstate and it's way more roomy and powerful than any S-series. Our 5.3 DOD Trailblazer pulled almost 19mpg on a 300 mile trip at Easter and it had only 650 miles on it when we left. I think the problem with the 4.3 is that it's just worked too hard, especially in a heavy 4x4.

The 98% of us that never offroad don't see the advantage in being smaller.

Post by **HenryJ** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:08 am

JimmyDiamond wrote:...The 98% of us that never offroad don't see the advantage in being smaller.

That "98%" probably don't really need a 4x4 either.

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:14 am

Keep in mind, many of us use our 4x4s for snow, not offroading.

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:19 am

HenryJ wrote:
JimmyDiamond wrote:... You really don't gain anything by going smaller since the mileage is the same or worse...
Mileage is a little better for normal driving and there are some other advantages. The narrower track and shorter wheel base are a big advantage in my terrain.

I agree!

Most of my favorite trails are actually Jeep trails, and there is no way a full size could fit on these trails without moderate damage. I have some pretty good scratches on both sides of my CC from theses trails.

If 98% of you don't take your truck off road then why did you buy a 4x4?

Steve

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:32 am

It's funny how those saying "4x4s are only for offroading" live where you don't have winter!!

Let me let you in on a little secret, there's a whole other segment of us that buy 4x4s for use in the snow and never go offroad. Now just keep that secret between us ok?

Post by **Walt** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:44 am

killian96ss wrote:
HenryJ wrote:
JimmyDiamond wrote:... You really don't gain anything by going smaller since the mileage is the same or worse...
Mileage is a little better for normal driving and there are some other advantages. The narrower track and shorter wheel base are a big advantage in my terrain.
I agree! Most of my favorite trails are actually Jeep trails, and there is no way a full size could fit on these trails without moderate damage. I have some pretty good scratches on both sides of my CC from theses trails. If 98% of you don't take your truck off road then why did you buy a 4x4?

Steve

Down here in MS, most people have to have a "Z71". You're not cool unless you have a "Z71"

Not knocking anyone here who has one, I'm just knocking the people down here who have them because of their mindset. I hate it when someone calls me for an installation appointment and when I ask them what the make and model of their vehicle is, they say "It's a Z71".

People down here "think" they need 4x4's, when in reality they have little or no practical use. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking people who use 4x4's for recreation, as I fall partially in that category. I just can't stand the mindset of some folks down here

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:49 am

Personally, if I lived someplace that didn't have winter and I was buying a truck, I'd get 2wd.

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:51 am

JimmyDiamond wrote: It's funny how those saying "4x4s are only for offroading" live where you don't have winter!!

Let me let you in on a little secret, there's a whole other segment of us that buy 4x4s for use in the snow and never go offroad. Now just keep that secret between us ok?

No winter?

What planet are you from?

Doesn't everybody get to experience winter in some way? The winter here means floodin and muddin.

Although it doesn't snow here in Napa, the Sierra's are only 2 hours from here and I can guarantee they have snow.

Lots of it!

The last time I attempted the Rubicon I got stuck in the snow several times even with 4wd.

Steve

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:53 am

But my point is, you don't wake up sometimes to 14" of snow and need to get to work!

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:57 am

JimmyDiamond wrote:But my point is, you don't wake up sometimes to 14" of snow and need to get to work!

True, you got me there, but if I did wake up to that much snow I'm sure I would suddenly come down with a cold which would prevent me from going to work anyway.

I have seen 14 feet of water flood my town first thing in the morning!

Does that count for anything?

Steve

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:00 am

Oh believe me, I have plenty of fun in it

My favorite is when we get hit with a big storm during the day and people are leaving early to get home (usually w/o 4x4). I love putting on the 4hi and driving sideways down unplowed roads. To me that's more fun that crawling slow down a trail. It's kinda more like mudding. Go fast, spin tires and throw crap everywhere!

Difference is, I'm throwing slush/snow instead of mud.

Post by **Walt** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:02 am

JD, does the salt they use up there affect your paintjob much? Just curious.

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:19 am

Salt doesn't effect the paint so much as the undercarriage (unlike along the coasts). You can take a new vehicle and after a couple winters, the underside get's pretty rusty. This is why when I buy new vehicles they go right to Ziebart and get undercoated. I also take care to keep the salt washed off and I always keep a good coat of wax on my vehicles. That makes a huge difference. I probably wash the vehicles more in the winter than the summer.

If you don't keep the salt washed off and don't wax the paint, your vehicle will look bad pretty fast.

Post by **Walt** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:39 am

My 00 Sonoma was the same color as your Jimmy, and it was torture to keep clean, but when it was clean it sure was pretty

My CC needs a bath big time. But since dirt and spots don't show up well on the paint, I usually forget

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:47 am

Yes, dark blue is just as bad as black when it comes to keeping it clean!! It sure does look purty when it's clean though

I traded it in Saturday and it was sold 3 hours later! They didn't even have to clean it up because it was spotless.

Post by **Walt** » Tue May 30, 2006 9:12 am

JimmyDiamond wrote:Yes, dark blue is just as bad as black when it comes to keeping it clean!! It sure does look purty when it's clean though

IMAGE

I traded it in Saturday and it was sold 3 hours later! They didn't even have to clean it up because it was spotless.

Yea...I've owned a Black 99 Ranger, and a dark blue 00 Sonoma, and compared to those two, keeping the exterior of the CC clean-looking is 100% easier since it's pewter. I never really liked Pewter, but since I've added the black accessories, and it doesn't show dirt, it's grown on me.

Oh yea, you need to add a cobra style hood to your Jimmy. That would look sweet

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 9:37 am

I used to have a 2001 Blazer and it was pewter. Pewter is a fantastic color to maintain!

No hood, Jimmy is down the road.....

Blaze One · Post by **Blaze One** » Tue May 30, 2006 2:29 pm

hey now , where are the pics of the 06 malibu SS ?

F9K9 · Post by **F9K9** » Tue May 30, 2006 3:00 pm

Blaze One wrote:hey now , where are the pics of the 06 malibu SS ?

I had thought the same thing

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Tue May 30, 2006 4:42 pm

f9k9 wrote:
Blaze One wrote:hey now , where are the pics of the 06 malibu SS ?
I had thought the same thing

Me too!

Steve

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Tue May 30, 2006 5:50 pm

Eh, haven't really taken any good pics yet. I bought it for a daily driver to keep the miles off the TB. It's a decent car but nothing special.

I snapped a couple at the dealership Saturday morning.

When I get time I'll take some nice pics.

TexasBlaZeR2 · Post by **TexasBlaZeR2** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:32 pm

Prior to moving to Raleigh last year I lived in New England for a few years. It definitely took a toll on my 2000 with salt, etc. However, in the winter that 4WD was a necessity...especially a couple of years ago with over 100 inches of snow during the winter months. I live in Raleigh now, but do head north to NH, ME and VT once in a while. That is the main reason I got a 2005 identical to my 2000.

I like my BlaZeR2. However, as I get older, it gets to be more of a pain to try and stuff all my stuff in the rear. I work for the military and sometimes I fly to different bases and have to stuff suitcases, etc in the back of my rig. Not much room back there. When I drive a rental it is a different story. My rentals lately have included a lot of 4 doors and some hatchbacks. To be honest, I have been looking really hard at Avalanches and Tahoes with $4000-$5000 rebates.

She was driving my rig to work everyday with about 16mpg. Memorial weekend we bought a 2006 Malibu LS with a V6 and only 26K on it. The car was in great shape and looked like it was only driven on Sundays. The next day we took the car from Raleigh, up to Boone, NC, through the Blue Ridge Mountains and all the way to Asheville on one...yes I said one...tank of gas.
Even with all the mountain driving, etc. the trip computer said we averaged 25.6mpg.

Traded my Z24 Cav with the quad 4 in on my 2000 ZR2. I remember what a shock it was to get half the mileage back then. The malibu reminds me of that. We were thinking impalas, but someone at one of the bases where I was working had a 2006 Impala SS. He said he only got about 14mpg.

Gotta admit it would be nice to have a big 4 door with lots of power, but wish it got about 30 mpg.

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:07 pm

RaleighBlaZeR2 wrote:Gotta admit it would be nice to have a big 4 door with lots of power, but wish it got about 30 mpg.

I can almost get 30 mpg in my SS if I drive VERY conservative.

I never get less than 18 and my best is 28. Overall I average 22 mpg.

Not too bad for a 10 year old V-8 powered car that weighs 4200 lbs.

Steve

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:09 am

It's kinds funny that the Malibu doesn't get 30mpg, esepcially considering it's not that large. Our 2003 Bonneville would always get at least 30mpg on road trips. I took a few by myself for work and got 32! That's also running at least 75mph and the Bonneville is a larger, heavier car than the Malibu!

2kwik4u · Post by **2kwik4u** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:49 am

JimmyDiamond wrote:It's kinds funny that the Malibu doesn't get 30mpg, esepcially considering it's not that large. Our 2003 Bonneville would always get at least 30mpg on road trips. I took a few by myself for work and got 32! That's also running at least 75mph and the Bonneville is a larger, heavier car than the Malibu!

The larger car allowed a lower overall gearing, and reduced RPM at highway speeds......Thats where your fuel economy came from.

Same deal on the 'vette's, GTO's, and F-body's.....the T56 is a double overdrive, and gets the RPM WAY low while cruising to conserve fuel.

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:57 am

Uh, backwards. Lower gearing = higher RPMS

The Bonne was actually geared higher, had less HP and about 400 lbs more curb weight yet got better mileage! Go figure

2kwik4u · Post by **2kwik4u** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:05 am

JimmyDiamond wrote:Uh, backwards. Lower gearing = higher RPMS

The Bonne was actually geared higher, had less HP and about 400 lbs more curb weight yet got better mileage! Go figure

Yea yea lower or higher, whatever. Lower numerically = lower RPM@cruise.....it's a difference in our point of reference.....you got the idea though.

It's not all about total HP numbers either. It's WHERE and HOW that power is made.

The 3.8 in the Bonne' probably made a bit more power down low, and was able to run the lower RPM at cruise without ill effect. The SS most likely makes a bit more up top, and subsequently needs a few more rev's on the freeway to keep it going. Remember HP is directly calculated from Torque, and isn't truly measureable.

Weight has little to nothing to do with power used under cruise. Once a vehicle is up to speed the amount of power it takes to keep it at speed is relatively the same. Based on a whole slew of factors like aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and things of that nature....assuming semi-flat cruising.

JimmyDiamond · Post by **JimmyDiamond** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:23 am

Regardless of all the different reasons, I'm still impressed with how well that Bonneville did fuel economy wise. I can tell from a dead stop the Malibu would walk all over the Bonne though.