Results 1 to 50 of 50

Thread: 1996 Chevy Blazer LS 4WD

  1. #1
    Soli Deo Gloria FadetoBlack's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Posts
    3,310
    vCash
    431
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: FadetoBlack261

    1996 Chevy Blazer LS 4WD

    I have an opportunity to pick one up (I'm in the market for a new car) for $2000 at the dealership where I work. I'ts got 180,000 miles on it and I'm having a tech look at it for me in the morning, but does anyone know anything about these trucks? Reliabitity? Problems? I'd appreicate any insight... it seems like a pretty good deal... the woman who traded it in has apparently recently replaced alot of the parts on it including the tranny (IIRC) so I don't know that the parts are as used as the rest of the SUV... thanks guys

    ~FtB

  2. #2
    Mike Rowe for president Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    WV, KS, WV again
    Posts
    21,190
    vCash
    500
    Make sure the 4x4 switch works, the vacuum actuation likes to take a shit.

    If it's a CPI, potential for problems with the spider injectors and nut kit, especially if they've never been replaced.

    4.3L is a relatively reliable engine, 4L60E is standard fare, 7.625" rear, nothing special. If it's in good condition and checks out, $2000 isn't bad at all.

  3. #3
    Soli Deo Gloria FadetoBlack's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Posts
    3,310
    vCash
    431
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: FadetoBlack261
    4x4 works... it's the 4.3 vortec engine...

    thanks for the help

  4. #4
    Resident Lifesaver LifeBoatDriver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Southern 'Bama
    Posts
    7,693
    vCash
    500
    FWIW, my '01 4.3 Blazer was the biggest POS I ever owned.

    In ~9 months and about 10K miles:
    Distributor
    Clutch Master
    Thermostat
    And a CEL for a bad distributor when I traded it in....all with about 40K miles on it.

    I have heard and seen the 4.3 be pretty bulletproof, but mine was a

  5. #5
    moats & toes
    jmd's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    God Hates Fags Preschool
    Posts
    42,544
    vCash
    500
    oil cooler gasket / lines might be a problem but with 180k, they've probably already been done.

  6. #6
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Ball joints.. The uppers are hard to get to and most oil shop squids won't bother contorting to try to get them so they remain dry and then wear out.

  7. #7
    Smilie King :flex: NoRiceInside's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Race City U.S.A.
    Posts
    23,318
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    Ball joints.. The uppers are hard to get to and most oil shop squids won't bother contorting to try to get them so they remain dry and then wear out.
    bullshit 'your' design sucks, ball joints do not go bad at 30,000miles dry or not unless someone on the engineering team was out to lunch

  8. #8
    Registered Member Car Guy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    7,674
    vCash
    5960
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: huntermike123
    I've had 3 of them a 89, 94 and a 98. The 89 was always leaking something, oil, axle seals you name it. The 94 even worse with a leaking oil cooler lines. It also had EGR problems but I was able to correct that with a beer can. The 98, well it threw a rod at 71k miles. I will never own another one.
    Last edited by Car Guy; 10-09-2007 at 06:15 PM.
    2005 Explorer
    2007 Accord


    Help Build LS2 Mini City, click below
    http://ls2.myminicity.com

  9. #9
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by NoRiceInside
    bullshit 'your' design sucks, ball joints do not go bad at 30,000miles dry or not unless someone on the engineering team was out to lunch
    Yet strangely; when they are properly lubricated, they hold up just fine... ... And the balljoints in question were used on about 10 million cars and trucks. If they were that failure prone (other than failure to lube) we would be swerving around them driving to work every morning.

    BTW; it's not "my" design. I'm pretty sure the people that did that design are long retired since the truck came out in 1982; which is 26 years ago for you who (like all rice inside) are math challenged.
    The 4wd front suspension came off of the 1979 Cadillac/Buick/Olds FWD midsize (I.E. Toronado) and that goes back 29 years. The RWD front suspension came out on the 1978 Midsize cars (Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Regal, Grand Prix) which is 30 years ago.
    Last edited by dave1w41; 10-09-2007 at 07:41 PM.

  10. #10
    Mike Rowe for president Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    WV, KS, WV again
    Posts
    21,190
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by thehunter
    I've had 3 of them a 89, 94 and a 98. The 89 was always leaking something, oil, axle seals you name it. The 94 even worse with a leaking oil cooler lines. It also had EGR problems but I was able to correct that with a beer can. The 98, well it threw a rod at 71k miles. I will never own another one.
    Sounds like mine....'94 blew a set of oil cooler lines and the engine exploded at 128k, '95 blew the oil cooler lines, lunched the rear diff, had a cracked from a-arm (and it was a chick driver who never did anything but city driving) and chucked a rod at 55k (directly related to blowing the oil lines out).

    Seems like I got two bad ones of the bunch, but most people on s-10forums didn't have too many issues.

  11. #11
    Soli Deo Gloria FadetoBlack's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Posts
    3,310
    vCash
    431
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: FadetoBlack261
    well, I appreciate all the help guys, but the tech came up to me and said "run... run away as fast as you can"...

    car apparently had a leaking intake valve, all 4 brakes were shot, etc.... I think I'm gonna take a pass on this one...

  12. #12
    moats & toes
    jmd's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    God Hates Fags Preschool
    Posts
    42,544
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by thehunter
    I've had 3 of them a 89, 94 and a 98. The 89 was always leaking something, oil, axle seals you name it. The 94 even worse with a leaking oil cooler lines. It also had EGR problems but I was able to correct that with a beer can. The 98, well it threw a rod at 71k miles. I will never own another one.
    On the 94, I corrected the oil leak with a new gasket, bolts & loc-tite at the cooler adapter.

    I corrected EGR with a new valve (after doing factory svc. manual diagnostics to determine the valve as bad. The internal spring was broken)

    171k and counting.

  13. #13
    moats & toes
    jmd's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    God Hates Fags Preschool
    Posts
    42,544
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    Yet strangely; when they are properly lubricated, they hold up just fine... ... And the balljoints in question were used on about 10 million cars and trucks. If they were that failure prone (other than failure to lube) we would be swerving around them driving to work every morning.

    BTW; it's not "my" design. I'm pretty sure the people that did that design are long retired since the truck came out in 1982; which is 26 years ago for you who (like all rice inside) are math challenged.
    The 4wd front suspension came off of the 1979 Cadillac/Buick/Olds FWD midsize (I.E. Toronado) and that goes back 29 years. The RWD front suspension came out on the 1978 Midsize cars (Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Regal, Grand Prix) which is 30 years ago.
    And the 2WD front parts are just downsized versions of the brake & knuckle components from the '73 A-body which were the same as the early 2nd gens. (bearing changes in the 70s notwithstanding.)

    I can vouch for the 2WD balljoints not sucking.

    The 4WD 94 S-10 just got new Moog parts ~10k ago. I can't imagine them not lasting since the originals went 160k and were still fine. (I did arm bushings & balljoints because the upper arm bushings were trashed.)

  14. #14
    Things are well TARZAN's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Greater Memphis Area
    Posts
    16,103
    vCash
    500
    I had one for awhile, and now my buddy has it. Talked to him yesterday, and its treating him GREAT. 240K on the clock, still running fine. Only real problems its had was an intake gasket.

    -Will

  15. #15
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by jmd
    And the 2WD front parts are just downsized versions of the brake & knuckle components from the '73 A-body which were the same as the early 2nd gens. (bearing changes in the 70s notwithstanding.)

    I can vouch for the 2WD balljoints not sucking.

    The 4WD 94 S-10 just got new Moog parts ~10k ago. I can't imagine them not lasting since the originals went 160k and were still fine. (I did arm bushings & balljoints because the upper arm bushings were trashed.)


    Lube them, they last just fine.

  16. #16
    Smilie King :flex: NoRiceInside's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Race City U.S.A.
    Posts
    23,318
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    Yet strangely; when they are properly lubricated, they hold up just fine... ... And the balljoints in question were used on about 10 million cars and trucks. If they were that failure prone (other than failure to lube) we would be swerving around them driving to work every morning.

    BTW; it's not "my" design. I'm pretty sure the people that did that design are long retired since the truck came out in 1982; which is 26 years ago for you who (like all rice inside) are math challenged.
    The 4wd front suspension came off of the 1979 Cadillac/Buick/Olds FWD midsize (I.E. Toronado) and that goes back 29 years. The RWD front suspension came out on the 1978 Midsize cars (Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Regal, Grand Prix) which is 30 years ago.
    ok so it worked on a car 30 years ago. so you can really sit there and say late 90's-00's blazers dont have some ball joint problems ?

  17. #17
    Twitter: @CoachHoke Coach Brady Hoke's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    @CoachHoke
    Posts
    46,540
    vCash
    714
    I had a 1996 LS 4.3 Blazer, 4wd/4door. Never had any issues with it but only had it for 3 years before it was totaled.

    It was far better than my 1999 Blazer which was a complete piece of crap.

  18. #18
    Banned 98redZ's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    TwinCities
    Posts
    1,357
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    Make sure the 4x4 switch works, the vacuum actuation likes to take a shit.

    If it's a CPI, potential for problems with the spider injectors and nut kit, especially if they've never been replaced.

    4.3L is a relatively reliable engine, 4L60E is standard fare, 7.625" rear, nothing special. If it's in good condition and checks out, $2000 isn't bad at all.
    95 was the last year of the CPI I believe.

    The EGR can be fixed with the gasket with a screen in it

    I had a 95 with 190k + on it and it was solid

  19. #19
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by NoRiceInside
    ok so it worked on a car 30 years ago. so you can really sit there and say late 90's-00's blazers dont have some ball joint problems ?
    They do; because people fail to lubricate them. That's why I mentioned it in the first place.

  20. #20
    Camille Leblanc-Bazinet :love:
    LS1MONSTER's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    S. California
    Posts
    25,062
    vCash
    500
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: donvito666
    I stopped reading at "It's got 180,000 miles on it."

  21. #21
    Mike Rowe for president Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    WV, KS, WV again
    Posts
    21,190
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    They do; because people fail to lubricate them. That's why I mentioned it in the first place.
    I believe his point was that 4x4 pickup trucks and SUVs should be designed a bit differently than FWD cars from the 70s.

    I know I'd be a bit unhappy if I bought a 2007 Sierra and it had the same front suspension and axle as my '87 Blazer.

  22. #22
    Always ready for a costume party! FirehawkNS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC (lucia)
    Posts
    21,059
    vCash
    700
    I have two buddies with Blazers (one 95, one 96), both with over 225k miles last checked and they said they run great and trust them just fine on long trips. They have only had little things on the Blazer go out, but the motor has been rock strong.

    Mine is an 01 with 102k miles, bought it a couple of months ago. I have to fix a few little things, but other wise she runs great.
    1999 Pewter Z28
    Flickr
    1999 Z28, 2001 Blazer LT

  23. #23
    Resident Lifesaver LifeBoatDriver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Southern 'Bama
    Posts
    7,693
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    I believe his point was that 4x4 pickup trucks and SUVs should be designed a bit differently than FWD cars from the 70s.

    I know I'd be a bit unhappy if I bought a 2007 Sierra and it had the same front suspension and axle as my '87 Blazer.
    The thing is, you would not know that it was the same anyway. There are tons of these blazers running around still, doing a fine job.
    My buddy has a 89 that he drives the wee out of, bashes it off road, daily driven, etc. We replaced the oil cooler gasket and thats been it aside from normal wear items...

  24. #24
    Mike Rowe for president Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    WV, KS, WV again
    Posts
    21,190
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by LifeBoatDriver
    The thing is, you would not know that it was the same anyway. There are tons of these blazers running around still, doing a fine job.
    My buddy has a 89 that he drives the wee out of, bashes it off road, daily driven, etc. We replaced the oil cooler gasket and thats been it aside from normal wear items...
    Just because something works doesn't mean it's a good design.

  25. #25
    Smilie King :flex: NoRiceInside's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Race City U.S.A.
    Posts
    23,318
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    Just because something works doesn't mean it's a good design.
    its not worth it he is the GM god and they do no wrong. when i was in the shop still blazer ball joints where cake and if planned right you could do 6 a day every few weeks and this wasn't a dealer ( our local dealers sucked so these were in warrenty in some cases) . this was in 01/02 but fuck if dave thinks its not a problem who are we to say it was .

    while we are on blazers jmd had another 'non-problem' the oil lines from the remote filter to the block. but those need grease too

  26. #26
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    I believe his point was that 4x4 pickup trucks and SUVs should be designed a bit differently than FWD cars from the 70s.

    I know I'd be a bit unhappy if I bought a 2007 Sierra and it had the same front suspension and axle as my '87 Blazer.
    Do you think? Maybe that's why GM no longer builds this truck?


  27. #27
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by NoRiceInside
    its not worth it he is the GM god and they do no wrong. when i was in the shop still blazer ball joints where cake and if planned right you could do 6 a day every few weeks and this wasn't a dealer ( our local dealers sucked so these were in warrenty in some cases) . this was in 01/02 but fuck if dave thinks its not a problem who are we to say it was .

    while we are on blazers jmd had another 'non-problem' the oil lines from the remote filter to the block. but those need grease too
    Do you want me to apologize for GM building so many and people buying them by the millions? Every single one of the hundred or so sets that I have replaced has had a common characteristic; they was as dry as a bone. My mother has one of these trucks and it needed ball joints too - and do you know who was to blame? My Mom; for taking it to "Eddie's Fast Lane Oil Change" for the first 30,000 miles and not getting a single drop of grease when she was supposed to be getting an "LOF".
    It now has the second set of ball joints, (which are fine because I lube them twice a year) that have 70,000 miles on them and have been in the truck for 5 years. Just because you replace a lot of parts on the most common vehicle of it's type built at the time does not mean that the parts are "defective" it just means there's a lot of vehicles out there with those parts on them. Try to maintain perspective and get off of your jump to conclusions mat. It's a lubrication problem not a product quality problem - end of story.

    And that oil cooler design is no longer in use either because IMHO it's a POS. It's designs like that that result in corporate edicts like; "don't take the oil to the water, bring the water to the oil" - something that should have been engineering practice 30 years ago. External oil lines are something that needed to go away in the 1950's.
    Last edited by dave1w41; 10-11-2007 at 05:46 PM.

  28. #28
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    Just because something works doesn't mean it's a good design.
    Normally when something works well you don't replace it for the sake of replacement. You might want to look at the basic chassis of the Toyota Camry that has been in use since 1986. It's now the ripe old age of 22 and it seems to be working just fine.

  29. #29
    Smilie King :flex: NoRiceInside's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Race City U.S.A.
    Posts
    23,318
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    Do you want me to apologize for GM building so many and people buying them by the millions? Every single one of the hundred or so sets that I have replaced has had a common characteristic; they was as dry as a bone. My mother has one of these trucks and it needed ball joints too - and do you know who was to blame? My Mom; for taking it to "Eddie's Fast Lane Oil Change" for the first 30,000 miles and not getting a single drop of grease when she was supposed to be getting an "LOF".
    It now has the second set of ball joints, (which are fine because I lube them twice a year) that have 70,000 miles on them and have been in the truck for 5 years. Just because you replace a lot of parts on the most common vehicle of it's type built at the time does not mean that the parts are "defective" it just means there's a lot of vehicles out there with those parts on them. Try to maintain perspective and get off of your jump to conclusions mat. It's a lubrication problem not a product quality problem - end of story.

    i was going to wait later for this but now looks like a good time. most i replaced were ungreaseable from GM, yeah you could break out the needle greaser but nah GM knows better

  30. #30
    Smilie King :flex: NoRiceInside's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Race City U.S.A.
    Posts
    23,318
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    External oil lines are something that needed to go away in the 1950's.
    yup says the 2008 zo6

  31. #31
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by NoRiceInside
    i was going to wait later for this but now looks like a good time. most i replaced were ungreaseable from GM, yeah you could break out the needle greaser but nah GM knows better
    None of these vehicles in question (S10-based trucks and sport utilities - vehicles that look like this)






    ever came with non greaseable ball joints or tie rod ends so you are either confused or full of shit. So which is it?

    Maybe that's why they never got greased; you thought they didn't have grease fittings.

    you -> <-me


    BTW; properly designed non greasable ball joints and tie rod ends work just fine and last a very long time in the correct application. One of my best friends works for a supplier that does testing of suspension and frame components and they did some validation on the suspension corners for the Toyota Tundra using volcanic ash as an abrasive media. Basically; they take a suspension front "corner" (a frame section and suspension all the way out to the wheel mounting surface) and immerse it in volcanic pumice and then cycle the suspension through full stroke 1 million times or so - simulating about 100,000 miles of normal use. They did two tests; one with greasable parts and one with the parts typically used on Toyota trucks (sealed ball joints) and about 1/4 of the way through the test the greaseable parts would fail beause they were destroyed by the abrasive. They greased them at the equivlant of every other 7500 mile oil change or what would have been about every 15,000 miles. The non greasable parts would last through two or three complete tests or about 300,000 miles. The greaseable parts would last about 35,000 miles.
    Last edited by dave1w41; 10-12-2007 at 06:01 PM.

  32. #32
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by NoRiceInside
    yup says the 2008 zo6
    The Z06 has a dry sump oiling system and is a limited production car. Are you privy to some process by which the oil can be transported across space in a dry sump system without oil lines. Without oil lines there would be no Z06 because the engine would starve for oil in high-G manuvers and fail.

    Last edited by dave1w41; 10-12-2007 at 05:53 PM.

  33. #33
    Mike Rowe for president Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    WV, KS, WV again
    Posts
    21,190
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    Do you think? Maybe that's why GM no longer builds this truck?

    Maybe instead of switching the S-series out for an inferior platform, they should have done some minor redesign?

    Course, we know from the f-body that GM views it as better practice to kill a platform rather than re-engineer parts of it to get it to "modern car" status.

  34. #34
    Mike Rowe for president Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    WV, KS, WV again
    Posts
    21,190
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    Normally when something works well you don't replace it for the sake of replacement. You might want to look at the basic chassis of the Toyota Camry that has been in use since 1986. It's now the ripe old age of 22 and it seems to be working just fine.
    Why not? You can't be serious if you think modern technology couldn't build a better chassis for the Camry, regardless of how well the archaic one works.

    I mean hell, shitting in the woods and using leaves still works just fine, but that didn't stop people from creating the modern sewer system.

    Lack of change just because something "works" reeks of stagnation.

  35. #35
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    Maybe instead of switching the S-series out for an inferior platform, they should have done some minor redesign?

    Course, we know from the f-body that GM views it as better practice to kill a platform rather than re-engineer parts of it to get it to "modern car" status.
    The current small truck is not inferior to the S10. Unless you like shaky, rattly, flexy, trucks from the 1970's.

    Granted; it's not as good (yes I said it) in my opinion as a Toyota Tacoma; it's far better than the S10 ever was.
    Last edited by dave1w41; 10-12-2007 at 06:17 PM.

  36. #36
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    Why not? You can't be serious if you think modern technology couldn't build a better chassis for the Camry, regardless of how well the archaic one works.
    Case in point...

    Modern Technology

    Last edited by dave1w41; 10-12-2007 at 06:06 PM.

  37. #37
    Mike Rowe for president Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    WV, KS, WV again
    Posts
    21,190
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    The current small truck is not inferior to the S10. Unless you like shaky, rattly, flexy, trucks from the 1970's.

    Granted; it's not as good (yes I said it) in my opinion as a Toyota Tacoma; it's far better than the S10 ever was.
    I had 2 S-10s; neither were as shaky, rattly, or flexy as my '79 C-10 or '87 Blazer. My '94, which has been sitting outside in undrivable condition for most of the past 3 years, has doors that still shut and seal better than my '99 T/A, and an interior with less rattles and squeaks - that is, there are none. My '94 hauled 1600lbs of wood before without complaint, and it's the lowly TBI 4.3L.

    I rode around in a Colorado for 2 days before, and it was inferior in every aspect to either of my S-10s. Interior was cheap trash, seats were uncomfortable, didn't have the power of my '95 S-10 (seriously....a 5 cylinder?), rode like shit.

  38. #38
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    I had 2 S-10s; neither were as shaky, rattly, or flexy as my '79 C-10 or '87 Blazer. My '94, which has been sitting outside in undrivable condition for most of the past 3 years, has doors that still shut and seal better than my '99 T/A, and an interior with less rattles and squeaks - that is, there are none. My '94 hauled 1600lbs of wood before without complaint, and it's the lowly TBI 4.3L.

    I rode around in a Colorado for 2 days before, and it was inferior in every aspect to either of my S-10s. Interior was cheap trash, seats were uncomfortable, didn't have the power of my '95 S-10 (seriously....a 5 cylinder?), rode like shit.

    Reality owns perception. The 5 cylinder has never had less than 220 horsepower; at least 25 more than the most powerful SCPI 4.3 engine in the S10. Seat comfort is another subjective measure based a lot on body type, seat adjustment, etc. The interior is inexcusably cheap but it's no where near as cheap as an S10. It's also bigger, the chassis is about 500% stiffer, and far more refined, quiet, and rattle free. In everything but raw off road capability of the ZR2 package on the S10; the Colorado blows it away in every respect.

  39. #39
    Mike Rowe for president Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    WV, KS, WV again
    Posts
    21,190
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    Reality owns perception. The 5 cylinder has never had less than 220 horsepower; at least 25 more than the most powerful SCPI 4.3 engine in the S10. Seat comfort is another subjective measure based a lot on body type, seat adjustment, etc. The interior is inexcusably cheap but it's no where near as cheap as an S10. It's also bigger, the chassis is about 500% stiffer, and far more refined, quiet, and rattle free. In everything but raw off road capability of the ZR2 package on the S10; the Colorado blows it away in every respect.
    Trucks need torque, not horsepower. The 4.3L produced that in excess.

    The Z71 package is also a complete joke.

    Sorry, but after owning 2 S-10s and riding around for an extended time in a Colorado, I'd take even my '94 TBI over a brand-new Colorado.

  40. #40
    moats & toes
    jmd's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    God Hates Fags Preschool
    Posts
    42,544
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    None of these vehicles in question (S10-based trucks and sport utilities - vehicles that look like this)

    ever came with non greaseable ball joints or tie rod ends so you are either confused or full of shit. So which is it?

    Maybe that's why they never got greased; you thought they didn't have grease fittings.
    Dave, he knows damn well they have zerks. He just acknowledged they were greasable if you used a needle gun.

    The bottom line is that the zerks are a pain to get to & get ignored and on the lowers on a lot of them, the zerks are in a difficult angle relative to the access opening of the control arm. Could the arm have been designed so that there was a larger hole? Yes.

  41. #41
    moats & toes
    jmd's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    God Hates Fags Preschool
    Posts
    42,544
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    I mean hell, shitting in the woods and using leaves still works just fine, but that didn't stop people from creating the modern sewer system.
    You mean the Romans?



    Originally posted by dave1w41
    Reality owns perception. The 5 cylinder has never had less than 220 horsepower; at least 25 more than the most powerful SCPI 4.3 engine in the S10. Seat comfort is another subjective measure based a lot on body type, seat adjustment, etc. The interior is inexcusably cheap but it's no where near as cheap as an S10. It's also bigger, the chassis is about 500% stiffer, and far more refined, quiet, and rattle free. In everything but raw off road capability of the ZR2 package on the S10; the Colorado blows it away in every respect.
    The door panels on a CO I checked out were a mass of plastic (see attached.) At least the early 94-up S-10s had a vinyl / fabric panel in them. Maybe the CO needs the deluxe interior option.

    I'm 6'4" and I wish I could say that I found the CO more roomy. It felt like the same headroom, same legroom and worse seats to me. I realize that might be due to interior options lacking.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  42. #42
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by jmd
    Dave, he knows damn well they have zerks.
    No he does not.
    most i replaced were ungreaseable from GM
    I don't think that's what he meant - but even if he did he's wrong either way..

    They are more difficult than I would like to see but they are not impossible to grease by any stretch of the imagination. The lowers even through the hole are no problem; it's the uppers that are the pain in the ass and even then if you actually give a shit you can grease them. Problem is that to get a quicklube place to put a grease gun on a fitting it practically has to have a remote line and be positioned so that it could be greased by a guy in a wheelchair sitting by the front bumper.
    Last edited by dave1w41; 10-12-2007 at 07:46 PM.

  43. #43
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    Trucks need torque, not horsepower. The 4.3L produced that in excess.
    The 2008 Colorado/Canyon has a 5.3L V8 available... Is that good enough for you?

    Last edited by dave1w41; 10-12-2007 at 07:45 PM.

  44. #44
    Mike Rowe for president Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    WV, KS, WV again
    Posts
    21,190
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    The 2008 Colorado/Canyon has a 5.3L V8 available... Is that good enough for you?

    It's better, but I still don't like the truck. No off-road package means I'd never buy one.

    And PLEASE don't say the Z71 is an off-road package. It's not. It's some ugly flares and a sticker.

  45. #45
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by Element
    It's better, but I still don't like the truck. No off-road package means I'd never buy one.

    And PLEASE don't say the Z71 is an off-road package. It's not. It's some ugly flares and a sticker.
    I don't disagree; it's lackluster. They need a package like ZR2 was on the S10.

  46. #46
    Smilie King :flex: NoRiceInside's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Race City U.S.A.
    Posts
    23,318
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    The Z06 has a dry sump oiling system and is a limited production car. Are you privy to some process by which the oil can be transported across space in a dry sump system without oil lines.
    no how i made it plumbing race cars with the dry sump tank in the back of the car i will never know



    now now, you said oil lines are bad and should not be used. i then pull out the only card i had, z06 oil lines .. relax i agree with some of your posts. but someone needs to kick out your bar stool when you are playing king of the world

  47. #47
    Smilie King :flex: NoRiceInside's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Race City U.S.A.
    Posts
    23,318
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    Without oil lines there would be no Z06 because the engine would starve for oil in high-G manuvers and fail.

    that also could be gotten around with engineering

  48. #48
    Registered Member NHRATA01's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    17,307
    vCash
    1429
    Regarding the balljoints - I too used to think it was due to people not greasing them. However my '03 only has 36k miles, and I've greased them religiously every 5k, knowing they tend to go out. Even went and replaced the zerks with 45s and 90s to make greasing easier. Yet both sides already have play. Enough that the inspection station gave me a hard time about them last go-round 3 months ago. I really don't want to replace them, but its hard to get any resale on a 2-door 5 speed Blazer, so I'll probably own it til it dies.

  49. #49
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Webberville, MI
    Posts
    33,425
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by NoRiceInside
    no how i made it plumbing race cars with the dry sump tank in the back of the car i will never know



    now now, you said oil lines are bad and should not be used. i then pull out the only card i had, z06 oil lines .. relax i agree with some of your posts. but someone needs to kick out your bar stool when you are playing king of the world
    I'm glad you found that card and made an attempt but don't ever think it was anything more than an attempt.
    Last edited by dave1w41; 10-13-2007 at 09:28 AM.

  50. #50
    moats & toes
    jmd's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    God Hates Fags Preschool
    Posts
    42,544
    vCash
    500
    Originally posted by dave1w41
    The 2008 Colorado/Canyon has a 5.3L V8 available... Is that good enough for you?

    Great. Need 2 things with that please:

    [list=1][*]A clutch pedal. I know full effing well that when it comes out, it will be auto only. [*]The site update to reflect it: http://www.chevrolet.com/colorado/features/ fails to show this.[/list=1]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •