Buddy Boy yourself Mr Arco Graphite. Awful easy to be a tough guy on the internet, face to face is usually a different scenario. Anyway, moving forward, I was responding to your comment about 200(0) ish Chevys being junk, which simply isn't true any more than saying the Subarus or Toyotas are. I have had and built my fair share of high perf engines too, although I don't feel the need to list them all here. One of my best friends has been a tech for Honda/GM for years, and brought up something a few years back I had never thought about. He wonders why anybody would EVER buy a front wheel drive minivan (of any make) that they intended to keep for years beyond warranty. The difficulty of repair on this type vehicle completely outweighs (in his opinion) the fuel savings when compared to the ease of working on a Tahoe/Yukon (his example).
Subaru Outback vs Chevy Tahoe vs Toyota Highlander
- Thread starter pacem
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: nthach
Totally different cars - the Outback is more of a wagon, a lifted Legacy. If you see yourself venturing to the snow a lot, my pick is the Subaru.
I personally wouldn't fear the 2008-2011 EJ engines, I have a friend with a 2009 Forester and hers is the 3rd generation model before the FB25 made it's debut and it's been trouble-free according to her. I've driven a friend's 2005 Outback with the EZ30D boxer 6, that motor has plenty of go. No timing belt, spark plugs on a Subaru aren't terribly bad to do, you might need to pull the battery or airbox to get access to the coil packs but the right tools make it easier. I think the water pump on the EZ engines is driven off the timing chain, but accessing the cam drive in a Subie is like any other RWD car.
Between the Tahoe and Highlander - the Tahoe can haul more, marginally carry more but it will drink more fuel. The Highlander is more or less either a big Camry wagon or a less soccer mommy Sienna depending on how you see it. Toyota switched over to the 2GR-FE V6 in the 2008-up era from the previous 1MZ/3MZ-FE. No timing belt - but do make sure the oil lines have been replaced. Of course spark plugs on a Toyota FWD V6 will be a job to dread.
The Tahoe is based off a proven GM truck platform, the 4.8/5.3L LS1-based truck V8s had less issues than their 350 Vortec predecessor. Decently easy to work on and a good aftermarket to boot.
I am aware the Outback has little in common with the Tahoe, different category altogether.
I have a friend who bought a new HighLander circa 2002 and was not happy with the MPG. Said was getting around 20MPG but not sure if all highway or mixed driving. If the latter, really not a bad figure at all since it's a fairly large and heavy car.
I am fairly familiar with the outback, at least the older generations. Relatively easy to work on, though perhaps not as easy as the Tahoe. I know MPG-wise, the difference between Tahoe and Outback is almost 10MPG. I don't expect to hit 20 MPG in the Tahoe, except maybe on all highway and driving easy.
toyota I know nothing about. It looks cool on the pics, is probably not a good "value" being the most expensive out of the ones I listed. Though it may well be the best, not sure.
Totally different cars - the Outback is more of a wagon, a lifted Legacy. If you see yourself venturing to the snow a lot, my pick is the Subaru.
Between the Tahoe and Highlander - the Tahoe can haul more, marginally carry more but it will drink more fuel. The Highlander is more or less either a big Camry wagon or a less soccer mommy Sienna depending on how you see it. Toyota switched over to the 2GR-FE V6 in the 2008-up era from the previous 1MZ/3MZ-FE. No timing belt - but do make sure the oil lines have been replaced. Of course spark plugs on a Toyota FWD V6 will be a job to dread.
The Tahoe is based off a proven GM truck platform, the 4.8/5.3L LS1-based truck V8s had less issues than their 350 Vortec predecessor. Decently easy to work on and a good aftermarket to boot.
I am aware the Outback has little in common with the Tahoe, different category altogether.
I have a friend who bought a new HighLander circa 2002 and was not happy with the MPG. Said was getting around 20MPG but not sure if all highway or mixed driving. If the latter, really not a bad figure at all since it's a fairly large and heavy car.
I am fairly familiar with the outback, at least the older generations. Relatively easy to work on, though perhaps not as easy as the Tahoe. I know MPG-wise, the difference between Tahoe and Outback is almost 10MPG. I don't expect to hit 20 MPG in the Tahoe, except maybe on all highway and driving easy.
toyota I know nothing about. It looks cool on the pics, is probably not a good "value" being the most expensive out of the ones I listed. Though it may well be the best, not sure.
Also tell me about that 4.8L engine?
Pros / cons vs 5.3L?
Pros / cons vs 5.3L?
Originally Posted By: pacem
Also tell me about that 4.8L engine?
Pros / cons vs 5.3L?
The entire engine family (4.8/5.3/6.0/6.2) are all extremely similar except for a couple of details. The 4.8 doesn't have much torque due to its shorter stroke, but the 5.3 isn't known as a torque monster either.
Figure most 4.8's lead a harder life because of power versus weight in a big vehicle. But hey can get some real juice from normal upgrades...
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines...i-mouse-part-1/
Also tell me about that 4.8L engine?
Pros / cons vs 5.3L?
The entire engine family (4.8/5.3/6.0/6.2) are all extremely similar except for a couple of details. The 4.8 doesn't have much torque due to its shorter stroke, but the 5.3 isn't known as a torque monster either.
Figure most 4.8's lead a harder life because of power versus weight in a big vehicle. But hey can get some real juice from normal upgrades...
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines...i-mouse-part-1/
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: 379KITTY
Not sure where the "late 200(0) Chevy is junk" comment comes from. If even somewhat maintained 300-400K from a GM smallblock is commonplace. Plenty of fleet vehicles have achieved that which doesn't include idle either. Another import kool-aid drinker apparently. I'm sure any of the three will do well, but you asked about ease of repair. Tahoe wins there hands down.
Chevy Owner and NIASE master mechanic, builds and tunes chev street race engines on the side in the 70's and early 80s.
67 Chevelle SS 396 owner.
You Keep your kool aid and drink it yourself, buddy boy.
Yeah but a Tribeca? Come on man. The only two I have dealt with were complete garbage. Timing chain issues, CAM phasers, injectors both of them at less than 130,000 miles. They are not very good so I think that is why he said that. Remember the one I posted about here? I will have to find the thread. There are a ton of Vehicles better than that.
Found it
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3546271/1
Originally Posted By: 379KITTY
Not sure where the "late 200(0) Chevy is junk" comment comes from. If even somewhat maintained 300-400K from a GM smallblock is commonplace. Plenty of fleet vehicles have achieved that which doesn't include idle either. Another import kool-aid drinker apparently. I'm sure any of the three will do well, but you asked about ease of repair. Tahoe wins there hands down.
Chevy Owner and NIASE master mechanic, builds and tunes chev street race engines on the side in the 70's and early 80s.
67 Chevelle SS 396 owner.
You Keep your kool aid and drink it yourself, buddy boy.
Yeah but a Tribeca? Come on man. The only two I have dealt with were complete garbage. Timing chain issues, CAM phasers, injectors both of them at less than 130,000 miles. They are not very good so I think that is why he said that. Remember the one I posted about here? I will have to find the thread. There are a ton of Vehicles better than that.
Found it
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3546271/1
I have a 2007 Tahoe I purchased in Aug 2014 with 53,000 miles on it. I love the way it drives when everything is right. I now have 110,000 miles on it and have had to do a fair amount of work on it.
First recommendation: Find a shop that will sell you lifetime services for rotation, balance and alignment. You need to perform these services regularly. I do business with a Firestone Complete Care store.
I bought the truck from a rancher. The reason for the low miles was that this was his ranch truck so most miles were off road. Not surprisingly, the truck needed shocks and tires when I bought it. I lost my maintenance file from 53,000-74,000 but here's the last year+. Unless otherwise noted, oil changes were DIY and other work by Firestone.
TAHOE
01/01/16: 74,102 Oil & Filter 5w30 Synblend; rotation, balance, alignment; replace a/c compressor drive belt
02/25/16: 82,263 Oil & Filter PP 5w30+Wix / 7% OLM, 8161 interval
03/07/16: 84,650 rotation, alignment, tire repair (TPMS), brakes at 50%
03/16/16: 86,298 Replace L front wheel bearing hub $364.75
05/04/16: 90,660 Oil & Wix Filter PP 10W-30 / 7% OLM, 8,397 interval
06/05/16: 92,231 Rear brakes-new rotors and pads; front brakes-adjust, clean, lube;
Brake fluid exchange; balance, rotate, align
08/19/16: 96,374 Front tires replaced under prorated warranty $137.46; align
08/29/16: 97,440 Oil & Filter M1 5W-30+Wix / 27% OLM, 6,780 interval
11/07/16: 99,686 Firestone: replace front struts under warranty; replace spark plugs; rotate (newer tires to rear), align, front brakes inspected (good); battery tested (good)
01/25/17: 103,900 Oil & Filter M1 0W-30+Wix / 26% OLM 6,460 interval
02/01/17: 104,703 Hare Chevrolet: Transmission Service(flush); 4WD Service(front/rear diff, transfer case)
03/09/17: 109,043 Front tires replaced under warranty $183.22; balance, rotate (new tires on rear), align
03/11/17: 109,306 Replace R front wheel bearing; re-align $385.00
03/15/17: 109,579 R front backing plate damaged by Firestone during wheel bearing repair which ruined R front rotor. So...new Backing Plate, new rotors and pads (R&L), re-aligned. I paid $210.77 for pads and L rotor.
No transmission issues. I have the four speed and it works very well. When choosing tires, get the longest warranty you can find. I am on my second set of Bridgestone Dueler Alenza Plus 80,000 mile tires. They won't go 80,000 on a Tahoe so I get the next set at a reduced cost based on the pro-rated warranty. This may seem like a lot of work-maybe it is. But I should be set for 2017 and the next 10-15,000 miles.
First recommendation: Find a shop that will sell you lifetime services for rotation, balance and alignment. You need to perform these services regularly. I do business with a Firestone Complete Care store.
I bought the truck from a rancher. The reason for the low miles was that this was his ranch truck so most miles were off road. Not surprisingly, the truck needed shocks and tires when I bought it. I lost my maintenance file from 53,000-74,000 but here's the last year+. Unless otherwise noted, oil changes were DIY and other work by Firestone.
TAHOE
01/01/16: 74,102 Oil & Filter 5w30 Synblend; rotation, balance, alignment; replace a/c compressor drive belt
02/25/16: 82,263 Oil & Filter PP 5w30+Wix / 7% OLM, 8161 interval
03/07/16: 84,650 rotation, alignment, tire repair (TPMS), brakes at 50%
03/16/16: 86,298 Replace L front wheel bearing hub $364.75
05/04/16: 90,660 Oil & Wix Filter PP 10W-30 / 7% OLM, 8,397 interval
06/05/16: 92,231 Rear brakes-new rotors and pads; front brakes-adjust, clean, lube;
Brake fluid exchange; balance, rotate, align
08/19/16: 96,374 Front tires replaced under prorated warranty $137.46; align
08/29/16: 97,440 Oil & Filter M1 5W-30+Wix / 27% OLM, 6,780 interval
11/07/16: 99,686 Firestone: replace front struts under warranty; replace spark plugs; rotate (newer tires to rear), align, front brakes inspected (good); battery tested (good)
01/25/17: 103,900 Oil & Filter M1 0W-30+Wix / 26% OLM 6,460 interval
02/01/17: 104,703 Hare Chevrolet: Transmission Service(flush); 4WD Service(front/rear diff, transfer case)
03/09/17: 109,043 Front tires replaced under warranty $183.22; balance, rotate (new tires on rear), align
03/11/17: 109,306 Replace R front wheel bearing; re-align $385.00
03/15/17: 109,579 R front backing plate damaged by Firestone during wheel bearing repair which ruined R front rotor. So...new Backing Plate, new rotors and pads (R&L), re-aligned. I paid $210.77 for pads and L rotor.
No transmission issues. I have the four speed and it works very well. When choosing tires, get the longest warranty you can find. I am on my second set of Bridgestone Dueler Alenza Plus 80,000 mile tires. They won't go 80,000 on a Tahoe so I get the next set at a reduced cost based on the pro-rated warranty. This may seem like a lot of work-maybe it is. But I should be set for 2017 and the next 10-15,000 miles.
Last edited:
Highlander hands down.
Bulletproof engine, bulletproof transmission.
Bulletproof engine, bulletproof transmission.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Figure most 4.8's lead a harder life because of power versus weight in a big vehicle. But hey can get some real juice from normal upgrades...
U-Haul's been specifying the 4.8L engines in their box vans, and I think a lot of work trucks/vans in corporate fleets spec 'em as well.
Figure most 4.8's lead a harder life because of power versus weight in a big vehicle. But hey can get some real juice from normal upgrades...
U-Haul's been specifying the 4.8L engines in their box vans, and I think a lot of work trucks/vans in corporate fleets spec 'em as well.
Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Figure most 4.8's lead a harder life because of power versus weight in a big vehicle. But hey can get some real juice from normal upgrades...
U-Haul's been specifying the 4.8L engines in their box vans, and I think a lot of work trucks/vans in corporate fleets spec 'em as well.
They were available as recently as last year in our 3500 service vans. They beat walking, but anything that weighs 9000 pounds or more could stand a bit more grunt...
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Figure most 4.8's lead a harder life because of power versus weight in a big vehicle. But hey can get some real juice from normal upgrades...
U-Haul's been specifying the 4.8L engines in their box vans, and I think a lot of work trucks/vans in corporate fleets spec 'em as well.
They were available as recently as last year in our 3500 service vans. They beat walking, but anything that weighs 9000 pounds or more could stand a bit more grunt...
Originally Posted By: pacem
OTOH with the Tahoe, it should handle the worst with the weight and bulk. Doubtful it will even get to 20mpg even with 5.3L.
Ignorant post on 20mpg with the 5.3
OTOH with the Tahoe, it should handle the worst with the weight and bulk. Doubtful it will even get to 20mpg even with 5.3L.
Ignorant post on 20mpg with the 5.3
Originally Posted By: pacem
There is no way to check for high oil consumption when test driving a car. I suspect I will hit upon one such sample with my luck.
And I've never heard of it. Which must be significant. Good luck getting a part out of a junk yard.
Park the car on a level surface, pop the hood, check the oil dipstick. Anyone with oil consumption "issues" has never checked the oil.
I have not heard ANY oil consumption issues on the Subie's 3.6 flat six. "Oil consumption" for Subaru outside of '12-13 FB engines are internet-myths especially with the 3.6.
I would not consider the Tahoe of this era. Even with the 4.8... the engine is never the issue with most GM (at least under 150,000mi) is EVERYTHING else that will need to be replaced.
The Tribeca is a good idea if you want a flat-6 Subie and don't want to pay an Outback used-premium. As far as junk-year parts, it shares nearly everything with the outback. No problem finding Subaru parts for that... except that Subarus do not go to junkyards willingly. Heck, people keep 30 year-old Subarus going around hear. I see Gen 1 legacies and a few Loyales around here fairly often.
The Highlander is also a good option, but it commands that premium as well.
There is no way to check for high oil consumption when test driving a car. I suspect I will hit upon one such sample with my luck.
And I've never heard of it. Which must be significant. Good luck getting a part out of a junk yard.
Park the car on a level surface, pop the hood, check the oil dipstick. Anyone with oil consumption "issues" has never checked the oil.
I have not heard ANY oil consumption issues on the Subie's 3.6 flat six. "Oil consumption" for Subaru outside of '12-13 FB engines are internet-myths especially with the 3.6.
I would not consider the Tahoe of this era. Even with the 4.8... the engine is never the issue with most GM (at least under 150,000mi) is EVERYTHING else that will need to be replaced.
The Tribeca is a good idea if you want a flat-6 Subie and don't want to pay an Outback used-premium. As far as junk-year parts, it shares nearly everything with the outback. No problem finding Subaru parts for that... except that Subarus do not go to junkyards willingly. Heck, people keep 30 year-old Subarus going around hear. I see Gen 1 legacies and a few Loyales around here fairly often.
The Highlander is also a good option, but it commands that premium as well.
Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Figure most 4.8's lead a harder life because of power versus weight in a big vehicle. But hey can get some real juice from normal upgrades...
U-Haul's been specifying the 4.8L engines in their box vans, and I think a lot of work trucks/vans in corporate fleets spec 'em as well.
Us fleet folks spec smaller engines because they are cheaper... nothing more. Cheaper to buy and hopefully cheaper in the fuel line-item. Heck, we are specing the 3.7 V6 Ford puts in every new van we have. A bidder put in the V10 6.8 in a RFQ and that was the first one dinged. We unload them before there is a "long-life" reliability issue. Uhaul does the same.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Figure most 4.8's lead a harder life because of power versus weight in a big vehicle. But hey can get some real juice from normal upgrades...
U-Haul's been specifying the 4.8L engines in their box vans, and I think a lot of work trucks/vans in corporate fleets spec 'em as well.
Us fleet folks spec smaller engines because they are cheaper... nothing more. Cheaper to buy and hopefully cheaper in the fuel line-item. Heck, we are specing the 3.7 V6 Ford puts in every new van we have. A bidder put in the V10 6.8 in a RFQ and that was the first one dinged. We unload them before there is a "long-life" reliability issue. Uhaul does the same.
Originally Posted By: 379KITTY
Buddy Boy yourself Mr Arco Graphite. Awful easy to be a tough guy on the internet, face to face is usually a different scenario. Anyway, moving forward, I was responding to your comment about 200(0) ish Chevys being junk, which simply isn't true any more than saying the Subarus or Toyotas are. I have had and built my fair share of high perf engines too, although I don't feel the need to list them all here. One of my best friends has been a tech for Honda/GM for years, and brought up something a few years back I had never thought about. He wonders why anybody would EVER buy a front wheel drive minivan (of any make) that they intended to keep for years beyond warranty. The difficulty of repair on this type vehicle completely outweighs (in his opinion) the fuel savings when compared to the ease of working on a Tahoe/Yukon (his example).
Too bad you buddy can only work on 100 year old technology
Just wanted to make sure EVERYONE knows I'm no import %@&. Loved the 60s to early 70's chevys dodges and um, Fords. Seems they were all decent.
My modern chevys were junk except my early 80s s10 v6 with the Rochester varajet and big port heads. 2007 silverado 4x4 4WT short wheelbase. Less than a year old, Stepped on the gas and the throttle boddy twisted off the plastic intake. Wanted to like it. Liked the chassis - not the torsion bar front. Likes the seats. Easy 60's driving style.
Buddy Boy yourself Mr Arco Graphite. Awful easy to be a tough guy on the internet, face to face is usually a different scenario. Anyway, moving forward, I was responding to your comment about 200(0) ish Chevys being junk, which simply isn't true any more than saying the Subarus or Toyotas are. I have had and built my fair share of high perf engines too, although I don't feel the need to list them all here. One of my best friends has been a tech for Honda/GM for years, and brought up something a few years back I had never thought about. He wonders why anybody would EVER buy a front wheel drive minivan (of any make) that they intended to keep for years beyond warranty. The difficulty of repair on this type vehicle completely outweighs (in his opinion) the fuel savings when compared to the ease of working on a Tahoe/Yukon (his example).
Too bad you buddy can only work on 100 year old technology
Just wanted to make sure EVERYONE knows I'm no import %@&. Loved the 60s to early 70's chevys dodges and um, Fords. Seems they were all decent.
My modern chevys were junk except my early 80s s10 v6 with the Rochester varajet and big port heads. 2007 silverado 4x4 4WT short wheelbase. Less than a year old, Stepped on the gas and the throttle boddy twisted off the plastic intake. Wanted to like it. Liked the chassis - not the torsion bar front. Likes the seats. Easy 60's driving style.
ARCO, valiant effort but sometimes you just have to let them live in their alternative reality.
Yeah, I would run, sprint and pray not to have a leading-up-to-bankruptcy-GM product. Anyone who had GM fleet vehicles (and boy, there are a lot) will probably have a similar experience because with GM, it was an issue more of consistency. I have a few decent fleet vehicles and a lot of dogs.
My all-time most hated vehicle is a 2008 Chevy Uplander (which includes a few Ford 6.0 Navistar PSD vehicles on that list). I rather be covered in honey in a field full of fire-ants than to own one (hey, it is FWD minivan) but I have to live with two Uplanders in my fleet. Those two take more trips to the shop than 5 2004-2006 chrysler minivans combined. The only vehicles that give those Uplanders a run for their money was my '07 and '08 Impalas. Technically, I have a 2013 Impala that has been great, nearly bullet-proof. However, the 07, 08, and the '12 are "replace the tranny and three PS pumps by 40K" bad. My twin 100K 2004 Suburbans are fairly bad but they have had a rough life too, hard to point out if it was the use or the lack of build quality. One Impala and one another 2500HD with over 200K (although with a new engine)are my standout vehicles. but unfortunately GM takes the lowest honors as well... well, that and the 6.0PSD and the 2.2l Transit.
Yeah, I would run, sprint and pray not to have a leading-up-to-bankruptcy-GM product. Anyone who had GM fleet vehicles (and boy, there are a lot) will probably have a similar experience because with GM, it was an issue more of consistency. I have a few decent fleet vehicles and a lot of dogs.
My all-time most hated vehicle is a 2008 Chevy Uplander (which includes a few Ford 6.0 Navistar PSD vehicles on that list). I rather be covered in honey in a field full of fire-ants than to own one (hey, it is FWD minivan) but I have to live with two Uplanders in my fleet. Those two take more trips to the shop than 5 2004-2006 chrysler minivans combined. The only vehicles that give those Uplanders a run for their money was my '07 and '08 Impalas. Technically, I have a 2013 Impala that has been great, nearly bullet-proof. However, the 07, 08, and the '12 are "replace the tranny and three PS pumps by 40K" bad. My twin 100K 2004 Suburbans are fairly bad but they have had a rough life too, hard to point out if it was the use or the lack of build quality. One Impala and one another 2500HD with over 200K (although with a new engine)are my standout vehicles. but unfortunately GM takes the lowest honors as well... well, that and the 6.0PSD and the 2.2l Transit.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Figure most 4.8's lead a harder life because of power versus weight in a big vehicle. But hey can get some real juice from normal upgrades...
U-Haul's been specifying the 4.8L engines in their box vans, and I think a lot of work trucks/vans in corporate fleets spec 'em as well.
Us fleet folks spec smaller engines because they are cheaper... nothing more. Cheaper to buy and hopefully cheaper in the fuel line-item. Heck, we are specing the 3.7 V6 Ford puts in every new van we have. A bidder put in the V10 6.8 in a RFQ and that was the first one dinged. We unload them before there is a "long-life" reliability issue. Uhaul does the same.
Since it does look like you run a fleet - is there a durability/reliability difference between the 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 GM offered or the older Ford 4.2L V6s compared to the 3.7?
Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Figure most 4.8's lead a harder life because of power versus weight in a big vehicle. But hey can get some real juice from normal upgrades...
U-Haul's been specifying the 4.8L engines in their box vans, and I think a lot of work trucks/vans in corporate fleets spec 'em as well.
Us fleet folks spec smaller engines because they are cheaper... nothing more. Cheaper to buy and hopefully cheaper in the fuel line-item. Heck, we are specing the 3.7 V6 Ford puts in every new van we have. A bidder put in the V10 6.8 in a RFQ and that was the first one dinged. We unload them before there is a "long-life" reliability issue. Uhaul does the same.
Since it does look like you run a fleet - is there a durability/reliability difference between the 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 GM offered or the older Ford 4.2L V6s compared to the 3.7?
Originally Posted By: nthach
Since it does look like you run a fleet - is there a durability/reliability difference between the 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 GM offered or the older Ford 4.2L V6s compared to the 3.7?
First of all, which 4.3? Are we talking about the LU3 (pre-2014) 4.3 or the newer LV3 4.3? I am going to assume older as the 4.8 was along side of the LU3. I like the newer 4.3 but do not have one in my fleet (yet). If you really want to talk about an odd love, ask me about the 4.2 Atlas engines.
You have to take my comments with a grain of salt... because I have mostly 4.3. I am not sure I still have a 4.8 anymore. For good/bad, many of our LU3 GM 4.3 also had natural gas conversion (ugg not my choice, happened before I signed on). It hasn't been a great truck for that. Major timing issues and minor cooling issues but I can't pin it down to the 4.3 specifically but some of the issues it has are not related to the conversion. So, I have a stinker example if the 4.3 that just spent 2 weeks on a lift. On the opposite end, we have a couple of Astros and a GMT800 trucks that have been great. Not high miles, (local workhorses for trades) and I can't complain. The 4.3 has some good examples for a 10+ years of work for me. Personally, it would be a bit of a wash but if it "has issues" the 4.3 can be a bit of a pain, the 4.8 is a bit easier. If this was my money, I would go with the 5.3 (I know, I cheated on that answer).
It would really depend on what you are doing with the truck. If you are not going to need/use a lot of torque and it is more of a daily with light use, (not wrenching it yourself) then 4.3. It is a strong engine and will run but the older ones are down on power. It is about a wash with the 4.8 in my book with longevity (unless you run into timing issues), but it is tough to tell. Chances are something else (aka the tranny) will be an issue. If you need that little be of torque, then the 4.8 makes since but it really is a de-contented engine. Fuel economy is not as good and power is decent but it would be worth it to find the 5.3 in the long run. Thus I would go 5.3 and call it a day.
Never had the Essex 4.2 in our fleet ironically enough. We have the Vulcan in our rangers (hate that vehicle). Otherwise, we went 5.4 if we went with fullsized Fords. Skipped over the 4.6 (good engine through). So far, the 3.7 are doing well. I have only had them in service since 2014 (40K is the highest mileage example)so not a long time and only had one issue (throttle failure at 6K on one vehicle).
Since it does look like you run a fleet - is there a durability/reliability difference between the 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 GM offered or the older Ford 4.2L V6s compared to the 3.7?
First of all, which 4.3? Are we talking about the LU3 (pre-2014) 4.3 or the newer LV3 4.3? I am going to assume older as the 4.8 was along side of the LU3. I like the newer 4.3 but do not have one in my fleet (yet). If you really want to talk about an odd love, ask me about the 4.2 Atlas engines.
You have to take my comments with a grain of salt... because I have mostly 4.3. I am not sure I still have a 4.8 anymore. For good/bad, many of our LU3 GM 4.3 also had natural gas conversion (ugg not my choice, happened before I signed on). It hasn't been a great truck for that. Major timing issues and minor cooling issues but I can't pin it down to the 4.3 specifically but some of the issues it has are not related to the conversion. So, I have a stinker example if the 4.3 that just spent 2 weeks on a lift. On the opposite end, we have a couple of Astros and a GMT800 trucks that have been great. Not high miles, (local workhorses for trades) and I can't complain. The 4.3 has some good examples for a 10+ years of work for me. Personally, it would be a bit of a wash but if it "has issues" the 4.3 can be a bit of a pain, the 4.8 is a bit easier. If this was my money, I would go with the 5.3 (I know, I cheated on that answer).
It would really depend on what you are doing with the truck. If you are not going to need/use a lot of torque and it is more of a daily with light use, (not wrenching it yourself) then 4.3. It is a strong engine and will run but the older ones are down on power. It is about a wash with the 4.8 in my book with longevity (unless you run into timing issues), but it is tough to tell. Chances are something else (aka the tranny) will be an issue. If you need that little be of torque, then the 4.8 makes since but it really is a de-contented engine. Fuel economy is not as good and power is decent but it would be worth it to find the 5.3 in the long run. Thus I would go 5.3 and call it a day.
Never had the Essex 4.2 in our fleet ironically enough. We have the Vulcan in our rangers (hate that vehicle). Otherwise, we went 5.4 if we went with fullsized Fords. Skipped over the 4.6 (good engine through). So far, the 3.7 are doing well. I have only had them in service since 2014 (40K is the highest mileage example)so not a long time and only had one issue (throttle failure at 6K on one vehicle).
Originally Posted By: glock19
It's anecdotal, but my wife had a 2010 Highlander that went 220,000 miles with the only repair being a driver's side window that fell out of the track. Then when we went to trade it in on a 2016 Highlander the dealer gave us $10k for it. Can't beat that in my book.
+1 that's value.
It's anecdotal, but my wife had a 2010 Highlander that went 220,000 miles with the only repair being a driver's side window that fell out of the track. Then when we went to trade it in on a 2016 Highlander the dealer gave us $10k for it. Can't beat that in my book.
+1 that's value.
- Status