Author Topic: Canyon/Colorado V8 (Read 7027 times)

pg2676 · « **on:** December 08, 2008, 12:06:07 am »

I notice GM crammed the 5.3L into the Canyon/Colorado. Any reviews out there anyone knows of?

barrie1 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 13, 2008, 09:54:12 pm »

I haven't seen any as yet but that will be a real play toy idea for some of the new for speed folks enjoy. The 5.3 is a very strong performer and quite good on fuel as well for its size in the larger trucks It should be even better with this smaller model and less weight of course. I can picture a SS version of this one.

FiestaTT · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2008, 10:21:24 pm »

The Canyon/Colorado/H3 platform mates are much less than stellar. Sticking a small V8 under the hood does not a good car make.

Oh, and the Toyota Sienna V6 does 0-60 faster than the H3 with the 5.3 V8

Buy a Ranger.

barrie1 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2008, 10:45:27 pm »

With the 5.3 from GM they will be a solid well preforming truck as that is a great engine which has served many thousands of owners quite well since its arrival around the year 2000. They have proven themselves to be quite dependable as well as reliable so putting one into a smaller unit will help the preformance if its needed for those who wish to have more fun with a truck. I agree with the engines that come in the previous models of the Colorado being somewhat weak in power but overall they serve rather well for what they are.

EV Dan · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2008, 11:23:14 pm »

Quote from: FiestaTT on December 16, 2008, 10:21:24 pm

The Canyon/Colorado/H3 platform mates are much less than stellar. Sticking a small V8 under the hood does not a good car make.

Oh, and the Toyota Sienna V6 does 0-60 faster than the H3 with the 5.3 V8

Buy a Ranger.

...and tesla does the same under 4 seconds.. whats the point? Nobody buys a Hummer for speed but I bet many would like to have a V8 4x4 in the past few days in south ON regardless the mileage.

Honda Owner · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2009, 01:18:32 pm »

The 5.3 is in fact a fine powerplant. It was in fact introduced in 1998.

The Canyon, is, however, not a fine truck.

I would recommend the Ranger. It is a good buy for the money.

tpl · « **Reply #6 on:** January 10, 2009, 01:52:41 pm »

Quote from: DanYanoff on December 20, 2008, 11:23:14 pm

Quote from: FiestaTT on December 16, 2008, 10:21:24 pm
The Canyon/Colorado/H3 platform mates are much less than stellar. Sticking a small V8 under the hood does not a good car make.

Oh, and the Toyota Sienna V6 does 0-60 faster than the H3 with the 5.3 V8

Buy a Ranger.

...and tesla does the same under 4 seconds.. whats the point? Nobody buys a Hummer for speed but I bet many would like to have a V8 4x4 in the past few days in south ON regardless the mileage.

Why? 'cos of the snow? 4x4 yes I guess. Ground clearance of an SUV sure... but not the high c of g. But a V8 ? why?

Why not a nice economical (turbo) 4 like a VW Tiguan maybe or a CRX. Much less chance of running out of fuel in a long traffic snarl. The torque of a V8 is no use unless you are a tow truck.

Honda Owner · « **Reply #7 on:** January 10, 2009, 03:02:34 pm »

Quote

Why not a nice economical (turbo) 4

Because Bigger is Better.

Note how quickly $1.50 per litre is forgotten. It will come back and then how happy could anyone be with car with a 5,3 litre V-8 that seats two people?

lester · « **Reply #8 on:** August 21, 2009, 04:56:43 pm »

gee I would think that if you had a bigger motor pulling a lighter truck or car you would get better milage due to the fact ther your moving less weaght and using less gas to do it.... a 300hp 8v would have been much better in my Blazer then a 195hp V6... more torque with the V8 = less throttle at the foot ....

btw the Ranger is nothing but a rebadged mazda truck (pure crap for what i have seen) the honda truck is nothing but a over sized car with a open trunk and don`t get me started with toyota and how their frames crack on the new FJ's if you do any more wheeling then your local FSR.

Cord · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2009, 06:48:00 pm »

Quote

btw the Ranger is nothing but a rebadged mazda truck (pure crap for what i have seen)

Sorry to burst your bias bubble lester, but the Mazdas are actually rebadged Ford Rangers

lester · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2009, 07:05:54 pm »

Quote from: Cord on August 21, 2009, 06:48:00 pm

Quote
btw the Ranger is nothing but a rebadged mazda truck (pure crap for what i have seen)

Sorry to burst your bias bubble lester, but the Mazdas are actually rebadged Ford Rangers

Same crap diffrent pile

kardood69 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2009, 10:11:12 pm »

Quote from: barrie1 on December 20, 2008, 10:45:27 pm

With the 5.3 from GM they will be a solid well preforming truck as that is a great engine which has served many thousands of owners quite well since its arrival around the year 2000. They have proven themselves to be quite dependable as well as reliable so putting one into a smaller unit will help the preformance if its needed for those who wish to have more fun with a truck. I agree with the engines that come in the previous models of the Colorado being somewhat weak in power but overall they serve rather well for what they are.

I thought that I-5 was a pretty good motor? Didn't those Atlas motors get some accolades?

I like the fact GM didn't go crazy with up sizing the Canyon/Colorado, but somehow the overall package is not that inspiring.

Honda Owner · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2009, 02:14:04 pm »

Quote

Didn't those Atlas motors get some accolades?

In the beginning they did. Then there was a rash of problems with cracked heads, caused by poor quality control on the lost foam casting method GM was using. This also lead to a problem with retarded mechanics not knowing how to, or being in too much of a hurry to, torque replacement heads correctly. For this reason the Atlas has been quietly dropped from production. It will not be used in any other GM product. Although GM has ironed out it's initial problems, it is too expensive to produce.

Roddy · « **Reply #13 on:** October 07, 2009, 03:26:26 pm »

Quote from: barrie1 on December 20, 2008, 10:45:27 pm

With the 5.3 from GM they will be a solid well preforming truck as that is a great engine which has served many thousands of owners quite well since its arrival around the year 2000. They have proven themselves to be quite dependable as well as reliable so putting one into a smaller unit will help the preformance if its needed for those who wish to have more fun with a truck. I agree with the engines that come in the previous models of the Colorado being somewhat weak in power but overall they serve rather well for what they are.

The canyon is by far the worst truck in its segment. The 5.3 is a decent engine but it won't change the fact that the canyon is still grossly substandard.

Roddy · « **Reply #14 on:** October 07, 2009, 03:29:20 pm »

Quote from: kardood69 on August 21, 2009, 10:11:12 pm

Quote from: barrie1 on December 20, 2008, 10:45:27 pm
With the 5.3 from GM they will be a solid well preforming truck as that is a great engine which has served many thousands of owners quite well since its arrival around the year 2000. They have proven themselves to be quite dependable as well as reliable so putting one into a smaller unit will help the preformance if its needed for those who wish to have more fun with a truck. I agree with the engines that come in the previous models of the Colorado being somewhat weak in power but overall they serve rather well for what they are.

I thought that I-5 was a pretty good motor? Didn't those Atlas motors get some accolades?

I like the fact GM didn't go crazy with up sizing the Canyon/Colorado, but somehow the overall package is not that inspiring.

An inline 5 is from the beginning at a disadvantage. It's an engine configuration that is designed to cut costs and is far from ideal.

The inline 5 was OK as far as reliability goes but it was somewhat thrashy and used a far bit of gas for the pathetic performance that it gives.

Mozeby · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2010, 03:43:42 pm »

If anyone thinks that the Ranger is a better Truck than the Colorado/Canyon, they need to take a cold shower and wake up. The Ranger is riding on a platform that's older than the average Crown Victoria driver. There's a review of the Colorado with the V8 on Motor Trend's website. I can't post the link but just go to motor trend and search v8 colorado.

maritime_storm · « **Reply #16 on:** January 11, 2010, 08:58:49 am »

Quote from: Mozeby on January 06, 2010, 03:43:42 pm

If anyone thinks that the Ranger is a better Truck than the Colorado/Canyon, they need to take a cold shower and wake up. The Ranger is riding on a platform that's older than the average Crown Victoria driver. There's a review of the Colorado with the V8 on Motor Trend's website. I can't post the link but just go to motor trend and search v8 colorado.

Yes the platform was built in 1982, however if you think the Colorado & clones are better built you would be sorely mistaken, check the reliability data between the 2. Ford worked out most of the bugs on the Ranger years ago, benefits of being an old platform. FYI the Ranger was last revised in 1998 to the current platform.

Petzy · « **Reply #17 on:** January 17, 2010, 10:00:28 pm »

Quote from: pg2676 on December 08, 2008, 12:06:07 am

I notice GM crammed the 5.3L into the Canyon/Colorado. Any reviews out there anyone knows of?

There are two axel ratios that you can get with the 5.3 V8 with the Colorado.

-3.43 and the 4.10

With the 3.43 the truck really goes and has LOTS of power for highway driving...The 4.10 makes it a sluggish and it rides more like the H3

mrthompson · « **Reply #18 on:** January 17, 2010, 10:27:06 pm »

HeliDriver · « **Reply #19 on:** January 18, 2010, 01:53:57 am »

Quote from: Petzy on January 17, 2010, 10:00:28 pm

Quote from: pg2676 on December 08, 2008, 12:06:07 am
I notice GM crammed the 5.3L into the Canyon/Colorado. Any reviews out there anyone knows of?

There are two axel ratios that you can get with the 5.3 V8 with the Colorado.

-3.43 and the 4.10

With the 3.43 the truck really goes and has LOTS of power for highway driving...The 4.10 makes it a sluggish and it rides more like the H3

You've got those numbers reversed: 4.10 will give better acceleration, 3.43 will be more sluggish.