Maybe for the C7 but they had Cat's in them back in 1995. They were C4500
.
.
Cat 3116 6.6L
New chevy diesel rumor??
- Thread starter dracing70
- Start date
Maybe for the C7 but they had Cat's in them back in 1995. They were C4500
.
.
Cat 3116 6.6L
haha yea and they are some of the most rediculous trucks to work on, you know its bad when you roll the hood over and all you can see of the engine is the fan hub and oil fill tube :rofl:
Are you talking about the kodiaks? We have a couple at work. They run like hell with a cat in that little dump platform. I was referring to the old rumor about cats in the pickups that was going around for awhile. This JD rumor I heard from a friend who is reasonably and deeply involved in our diesel sport. Not sure were he received his info but he was pretty persistent this was going to happen, I myself was skeptical to say the least. For all I know he could be a closet conspiracy theorist and doomsday prepper . :roflmao:
I agree & disagree. The 5.7 design was capable of 200,000 pretty easily. I have had 2 Chevy suburbans that ran 5.3 engines & neither of them made it 50,000 miles without engine knock & oil consumption. Dealer wound up replacing both engines. I went online & read about a lot of the problems associated with the 5.3 anyway. We had one 6.0 in 2000 and the damn thing sounded like it was starved for oil when first fired up it rattled the top end so bad. The ls is definitely more efficient and capable of a lot more power but the 5.7 was a great engine for sure.
I'd agree with that. The 5.3 is nowhere near a solid platform, sticking rings and using oil in a $45,000 SUV would pass me off big time. I think it has a lot to do with the flex fuel crap, shutting off cylinders when it wants, etc...
As for the OPs post, where do these rumors come from? What interest would john Deere have in getting into the on-road market? Cat got out of the over the road business, there was a reason...
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
Like I said. It was "here say" but from a somewhat reputable person. I myself fail to believe Chevy would just abandone such a successful platform. But the reason I was given was because of some revolutionary clean burning design that Jd had invented, that would eliminate the need for all of these bulky pollution control systems.
A few years ago i did see literature for the c-70 cab and chassis trucks of the 70's having a john deere diesel motor as a option. It was only two pages long
My grandpa has a 95 Top Kick with a 3116 for a grain truck and I didn't think it was that bad but hell we haven't really had to do much to it. We've had it loaded to about 35,000 lbs and it ran like a champ.
The early DOD 5.3's had some issues with oil consumption.
But the non-DOD 5.3's and current DOD 5.3's are fine.
The LSx engines are many times over better engines in every single way than the old iron boat anchor classic small blocks. How many 5.3's are there out there? So you heard of a couple here and there that had sticking rings and oil consumption issues (which, as I said, were isolated to the 06-09 DOD motors)...big deal. They are awesome engines and the majority of them will go much longer than the bodies of the trucks they are in.
And the piston slap issue on the early 6.0's, so it "SOUNDED" like it was going to come apart on cold startus. DID it ACTUALLY come apart? No, it didnt. It was a mere annoyance that doesnt actually cause any harm or shorten the life of the engine. I personally/first-hand know of several early 6.0's out there in abused work trucks with 650,000 miles on them. For 600,000 of those miles, they have been "SOUNDING LIKE" they were coming apart on cold startup. However strangely enough, the trucks are still running fine.
If they are "nowhere near a solid platform" like you claim, then why can you buy them for 200 bucks all day long. Because they're in such high demand because they're so unreliable?
I challenge someone to find me another "more solid platform" gas engine that will take 4 times its rated HP on a stock long block and not complain one bit. Then Ill agree with you that the 5.3 is "far from a solid platform". Or another gas engine platform that is cheaper to take to 1000hp.
As far as Im concerned, personally, ill defend the reliability and longevity of the LSx before I defend the reliability/longevity of the duramax.
WHEN the injectors on your LB7 go bad, thats going to cost you $1800ish just in parts, not counting labor. Do you have any idea how many times you can replace the entire 5.3 in a suburban for $1800?
rant off
ben
hopefully you never have to do anything to it. Parts for those old kodiaks stopped production a long time ago and supply is running out.
My friends dad has a couple, and they cant even get brake calipers for them anymore...
the 3116 in the topkick isnt that bad, the c7 in the newer trucks really sucks, just did a cam boxes on one and i had to pull the rockers and the base out all at one time and put it back in all at one time cuz it was stuffed so far under the cab, i couldnt get either one lifted far enough over the other without hitting the cab, hated my life that night
yes and no. they have the new cat trucks but its just an international that has a hood that looks like the back of a wheel loader. and so far they appear to not be of good quality, or at least not put together well. we usually spend a few days on a pre-delivery cuz there is so much crap that is put together poorly
My Dad had a 5.3 ecsb that went 420,000 never burned an oz of oil and that truck pull pontoon boats its whole life. He sold it for 5,000 bucks and its still driving around!!!
i know of many DPS tahoes with the 5.3 (2002-to early 2006) that have 150k on them and not one issue.
Those things made no money for me as a mechanic. never touched spark plugs till 100k and they still didnt look all that bad, did maybe MAYBE 2 sets of brakes on them to that 150k (most only needed 1 set). Other than that, it was change the oil every 5k, rotate tires every 10k, and flush the trans at 100k.
I had more 07s with rear main issues right from the factory than anything
Those things made no money for me as a mechanic. never touched spark plugs till 100k and they still didnt look all that bad, did maybe MAYBE 2 sets of brakes on them to that 150k (most only needed 1 set). Other than that, it was change the oil every 5k, rotate tires every 10k, and flush the trans at 100k.
I had more 07s with rear main issues right from the factory than anything
The early DOD 5.3's had some issues with oil consumption.
But the non-DOD 5.3's and current DOD 5.3's are fine.
The LSx engines are many times over better engines in every single way than the old iron boat anchor classic small blocks. How many 5.3's are there out there? So you heard of a couple here and there that had sticking rings and oil consumption issues (which, as I said, were isolated to the 06-09 DOD motors)...big deal. They are awesome engines and the majority of them will go much longer than the bodies of the trucks they are in.
And the piston slap issue on the early 6.0's, so it "SOUNDED" like it was going to come apart on cold startus. DID it ACTUALLY come apart? No, it didnt. It was a
mere annoyance that doesnt actually cause any harm or shorten the life of the engine. I personally/first-hand know of several early 6.0's out there in abused work trucks with 650,000 miles on them. For 600,000 of those miles, they have been "SOUNDING LIKE" they were coming apart on cold startup. However strangely enough, the trucks are still running fine.
If they are "nowhere near a solid platform" like you claim, then why can you buy them for 200 bucks all day long. Because they're in such high demand because
they're so unreliable?
I challenge someone to find me another "more solid platform" gas engine that will take 4 times its rated HP on a stock long block and not complain one bit. Then Ill agree with you that the 5.3 is "far from a solid platform". Or another gas engine platform that is cheaper to take to 1000hp.
As far as Im concerned, personally, ill defend the reliability and longevity of the
LSx before I defend the reliability/longevity of the duramax.
WHEN the injectors on your LB7 go bad, thats going to cost you $1800ish just in parts, not counting labor. Do you have any idea how many times you can replace the entire 5.3 in a suburban for $1800?
rant off
ben
I Agree that they are good motors but am still highly pissed to buy 3 different gm ls outfits that were $45k+ that were shit piles! The 6.0 was a major annoyance. Who would want to run a new rig around that sounds like a 7.3 power stroke ready to unload the rods? Also I am skeptical about spending another $55k plus for a new Denali having the same bullshit.
They may have had bad years with a minor problem but I guess I got 3 of them. 350 engine is probably to this day the longest built every day driver / street performer ever built. The ls may be much stronger & more efficient but doesn't have anywhere close to the same résumé as the 5.7 as of now.:thumb:
I've heard it all fella...and at this point whatever I "hear" goes in one ear and out the other because I have yet to actually see 1 rumor confirmed. For Example:
-I heard GM was switching from Duramax to Caterpiller motors in 2010
-Powerstrokes swapped to Detroits
-I ALSO heard that they were putting a smaller Duramax (4.5L I think?) in the 1500's.
WHO KNOWS
-I heard GM was switching from Duramax to Caterpiller motors in 2010
-Powerstrokes swapped to Detroits
-I ALSO heard that they were putting a smaller Duramax (4.5L I think?) in the 1500's.
WHO KNOWS
deere is currently implementing SCR into the 6R-9R series. with dpf and egr if you think they are gonna meet the standards without any of these give your head a shake lol.