vincent
Member
I have the 6.0 in a gmc 3500 now. I will be getting a newer van, but a great deal of the used vans have the 4.8L V8.
Is this big enough? I have a van full of crap.
Is this big enough? I have a van full of crap.
What size motor for newer van
- Thread starter vincent
- Start date
TimP
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,055
It probably will be enough. You may not get up to speed as fast as you're used to but as long as the truck can handle the weight then I don't see why it would be a big deal. I believe Rex runs the 4.8 with his cleanco q56 with a fresh tank and all and he's put 80,000 miles and over 3,300 hours on his.
SRI Cleaning
Member
Yeah, no doubt about it the 6 liter is a better choice, but i think the 4.8 will have enough power.
G
Guest
Guest
ditto what Tim P above me said and think of it like this.
Small v8s that are in the vans today have more HP and more torque than the bigger V8s of a few years back. Big engines in work trucks are just penis envy. Also the faster acceleration, the more likely you will abuse it.
Go slow and still get there. Save your money for what matters. Nobody is going to care either way. You're gonna drive cautiously anyway because fuel is outrageous, so go small.
Small v8s that are in the vans today have more HP and more torque than the bigger V8s of a few years back. Big engines in work trucks are just penis envy. Also the faster acceleration, the more likely you will abuse it.
Go slow and still get there. Save your money for what matters. Nobody is going to care either way. You're gonna drive cautiously anyway because fuel is outrageous, so go small.
Bob Foster
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,870
The 6 Liter will get better gas mileage because it will work less than the 4.8 on heavier load.
G
Guest
Guest
Only in theory.
Exactly what Bob said don't think a smaller motor is going to get better gas mileage. Remember power to weight ratio means alot. I would look at reviews about the different motors a little time for research now could save you bundles down the road.
roro
Member
We have run vehicles for many years that range from 2 Litre to 4 litre (mainly Japanese)
Fuel effective - cost effective.
roro
Fuel effective - cost effective.
roro
Out of Character - 0
Member
Our relatively empty e-150 with a 6cyl only averages 2mpg better than our loaded e-350 with a 5.4, tm, and 150-300gallons of water.
The Great Oz
Member
In just driving down the freeway running, the smaller motor would be better. If you're hauling a lot of weight, like say a truckmount, and don't alter your driving to 'milktoast' level, you probably won't see a significant gain in fuel economy using a smaller motor.
Another reason to buy the bigger motor is the heavier and more durable driveline components that come with it.
Another reason to buy the bigger motor is the heavier and more durable driveline components that come with it.
Actually the gear ratio has more to with mileage than the engine size.
Tim is correct about mine. I have had to replace a power steering pump on mine but that is about it. Most of the components are the same on the 4.8 and the 6.0 so I doubt it would have made a difference. Hell they even have the same drive belt.
SRI Cleaning
Member
Rex is right, They have to gear down the smaller motor for more torque at the wheels. This makes it run at a higher rpm and burn more gas.
For what is being discussed here, the diff in engines is negligible. MPG many vary by 1-3 when you have stuff in the van.
The smaller engine will work harder. That is just the way it is, always has been. You can get a smaller engine to develop more HP and torque, but it still has to work harder to get it. The 4.8 will have a higher compression ratio, hotter tune, and different ratios in the tranny to develop the HP and torque of a 6.0. That means it does work harder, and there is more wear and tear, but the new motors are so tight these days, with proper maint the lifespan should be about the same.
You have to look at where it will be driven. If you are doing a majority of city driving, consider taller rear end gears. This will allow for easier stop and go driving. 4.10 for chevys.
If you don't do a lot of stop and go, stick with the stock or highway gears, 3.73 for the chevy guys.
The biggest problem with today's engines is how they are tuned from the factory. They are tuned for the middle to low end of the spectrum driving. Torque is highly limited by the computer, mainly to save wear and tear so they can offer better warranties without upping the cost for stronger parts. Basically the computer retards the timing and fuel to prevent too much power from entering the drive line.
I have a custom tuned computer in my truck, designed for towing. 75% of the torque management has been removed, which gives me much better low end power. It's great as long as you don't abuse it.
The smaller engine will work harder. That is just the way it is, always has been. You can get a smaller engine to develop more HP and torque, but it still has to work harder to get it. The 4.8 will have a higher compression ratio, hotter tune, and different ratios in the tranny to develop the HP and torque of a 6.0. That means it does work harder, and there is more wear and tear, but the new motors are so tight these days, with proper maint the lifespan should be about the same.
You have to look at where it will be driven. If you are doing a majority of city driving, consider taller rear end gears. This will allow for easier stop and go driving. 4.10 for chevys.
If you don't do a lot of stop and go, stick with the stock or highway gears, 3.73 for the chevy guys.
The biggest problem with today's engines is how they are tuned from the factory. They are tuned for the middle to low end of the spectrum driving. Torque is highly limited by the computer, mainly to save wear and tear so they can offer better warranties without upping the cost for stronger parts. Basically the computer retards the timing and fuel to prevent too much power from entering the drive line.
I have a custom tuned computer in my truck, designed for towing. 75% of the torque management has been removed, which gives me much better low end power. It's great as long as you don't abuse it.
Russ Goddard
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2006
- Messages
- 102
For several months I worked for an outfit that had 10 Chevy 3500 extended vans, all with Blueline TMs, waste and fresh water tanks, lots of other equipment. In other words, heavily laden. The vans were all the same except some had the 4.8 and some had the 6.0.
There was a very noticeable difference. The 6.0 had plenty of grunt to pull all that weight. The 4.8's lack of torque was noticeable, especially pulling away from a stoplight, and it would downshift a lot more than the 6.0 on grades or even on level freeway running if you needed to speed up a bit. The 4.8 could be a chore to drive with that heavy of a vehicle. The 6.0 was kind of fun.
I never measured MPG but I doubt the 4.8 got significantly better mileage, and it had the transmission shifting up and down a lot more. I'd go for the 6.0 hands down.
There was a very noticeable difference. The 6.0 had plenty of grunt to pull all that weight. The 4.8's lack of torque was noticeable, especially pulling away from a stoplight, and it would downshift a lot more than the 6.0 on grades or even on level freeway running if you needed to speed up a bit. The 4.8 could be a chore to drive with that heavy of a vehicle. The 6.0 was kind of fun.
I never measured MPG but I doubt the 4.8 got significantly better mileage, and it had the transmission shifting up and down a lot more. I'd go for the 6.0 hands down.
Lee Stockwell
FOJL
Ours burns NO gas.
7.3 PowerStroke in an extended one ton van.
7.3 PowerStroke in an extended one ton van.
just for reference:
2000 chevy 1500 4x4 ext cab short bed 5.3 v8 3.56 gears = 15.7 mpg
2005 chevy 1500 reg cab long bed auto 4.8 v8 3.07 gears = 19.1 mpg
2001 chevy 2500 4x4 crew cab short bed 6.0 v8 3.56 gears= 10.2 mpg
these numbers are not compiled from one tank of fuel but the total average over 50,000 miles. I owned each of these trucks and kept a record every time I filled up the tank on each one. Very little if any heavy hauling although the 2000 had a bed topper on it.
2000 chevy 1500 4x4 ext cab short bed 5.3 v8 3.56 gears = 15.7 mpg
2005 chevy 1500 reg cab long bed auto 4.8 v8 3.07 gears = 19.1 mpg
2001 chevy 2500 4x4 crew cab short bed 6.0 v8 3.56 gears= 10.2 mpg
these numbers are not compiled from one tank of fuel but the total average over 50,000 miles. I owned each of these trucks and kept a record every time I filled up the tank on each one. Very little if any heavy hauling although the 2000 had a bed topper on it.
TimP
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,055
I've got a relative with suburban with the 5.4 engine in it and they have averaged 17.4 over 44,000 miles on their on board computer. And it's an 06 or 07 (new body style) with cylinder deactivation.
