GMC Truck Forum banner
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
GMCtrk said:
odd you mention that....they just had a show american muscle car on the impala SS on speed channel. Good ole 409 huh? :head:
hmm funny... in 1961, the first year of the Impala SS option only 142 came with 409s... yea i'm looking at a fact booklet on chevys... i wouldn't know theese facts off the top of my head. Trim package.. u had to buy the engine seperately:read: Ur thinking of the late 60s to 70

but in all honesty, my dream car is a 64 chevelle convertible... :D
 
2k1slvrdo said:
hmm funny... in 1961, the first year of the Impala SS option only 142 came with 409s... yea i'm looking at a fact booklet on chevys... i wouldn't know theese facts off the top of my head. Trim package.. u had to buy the engine seperately:read: Ur thinking of the late 60s to 70

but in all honesty, my dream car is a 64 chevelle convertible... :D

Take that one up with american muscle car show man....they didn't talk about the 409 in 61, but they did have factory 409's in the the 63's. In fact, they had more than 1 version of the 409. one was like 425 horse, one was 400. and they also have a 327.
 
i personally agree with what is said as far as statistics on the ss versus the other big 3 super trucks but bang for the buc can be better spent on the mods to a truck like mine to get better numbers. but i ahve driven a factory ss truck and they are sweet drien beasts fo a truck but i wuld rathe rhave my truck and put a vortech kit on it with headers and a tune and a built tranny to ahve my own beast. but the chevy ss still rocks :rocking: i just think u should be able to get to it in a rcsb to get the power to weight down.
well late rjust my .02 cents
jester
 
I read all the posts...and everyone tries to compare it to the lightning and srt 10...ford and dodge use reg cab short bed, RWD, one with a supercharged small block, one with a huge big block, while GM has a NA small block AWD ext cab...not too fair of a comparison in my mind...another truck you have to add into this lil comparison is by ford...the harley davidson trucks, ext cab with a supercharged small block w/ lower boost than the lightning...is it just me or should the SS be compared to the HD trucks?? low boost supercharged 5.4 vs. a H.O. 6.O seems much more fair...im not tryin to put down the SS, i think its an awesome truck, AWD so you can take a bunch of quick cars off the line no matter how heavy into the gas you are, ext cab so its a lil easier for the majority of people to live with...i just think that GM would have been a lil wiser to give the truck a different name. But at the same time you have to consider what 2K1slvrdo said...the SS package started out as a trim package...and eventually GM made it also be associated with lots of power too...I just think people see the SS name and think speed...when thats now what it has always been about for GM, so it gets thrown into the wrong catagory. Heres another thing to think about...GM had the SS S-10 from like 94-96. 4.3 V6, lowered 2", pretty much an apperance package...same sorta shit here...
 
00Silverado said:
I thought was only on a special option code with the aluminum block 5.3 though:think:
Oops...my bad. You're right...it is the 5.3 with an aluminum block. :pow:

As a daily driver, I think the SS would make a nice, peppy truck. It's big and roomy yet you don't have to sacrifice decent performance for comfort. If you want a hot rod dragster, go buy the SRT-10 Ram or a Lightning (or if you are a good enough mechanic, you can build your own). The 6.0 liter HO is actually capable of much more power, but I read somewhere that it was de-tuned so the AWD system (on the SS) could handle it. I never understood why they added the AWD feature. I'm sure it's real nice to have for snow and winter driving, but it could have at least been an option at most. I live in Texas, I'm lucky to see a day or so of snow/ice each year. And even so, we are such pansies here, the whole city shuts down for the day. But oh well. Also, I've read that the 6.0 is suppose to come out in the SSR and RCSB SS Silverado with 380+ horses. Still, its no Viper/Lightning killer, but its a step in the right direction.
 
O'kay guy's all this talk about the SS, Ford and Dodge Trucks, and let's not forget the (Joe Gibbs) this truck is a bad. all these trucks are awsome and the person that don't have the money to spend on the ss now, can add as many mod's as these performance trucks and in there mind they have a SS and can add a SS badge. yes some people have faster trucks but the bottom line $$ my truck is a RED 04 Silver LS with a few bolt on's I don't think it could ever be a ss but it runs, drives, and sounds good. and i can go out for lunch and have more than one Beer and still have money in my pocket. GM still builds the best street trucks :gmfs:

THANKS !
 
00Silverado said:
I'm never wrong! :crazy:
The 6.0 in the SSR's is supposed to be the LS2:drool:
True...but the LS2 is really nothing more than a aluminum block version of the Vortec 6000.

GMInsidenews.com said:
Also to clarify things, this is the second version of the LS2 rumored by many sources. To be honest, in simplest terms the LS2 (both versions) is nothing more than an aluminum evolution of the LQ9 iron engine in the Silverado SS with Gen IV upgrades.
It also goes on to talk about a new Trailblazer SS, RCSB Silverado SS, and possibly (this one is new to me) a GTO...all powered by the LS2.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5243

The article I was referring to was older than this...so some of my information was a bit outdated. :crazy:
 
Matt said:
haha yeah im in texas too and thats how my town is. last year when we got about an inch or 2 of snow school closed for 2 days. neat to be out of school, but i am a bit bewildered when it comes to thinking of things to do in the snow. :crazy:
Haha...I remember that last year. Two days was a lot of ice for us...and no one knew how to drive in it...lots of idiots that should have stayed home :pow:

But no school or work did rock :head:
 
GM has a history of lagging behind Ford and Chrysler with the exception of the Corvette and the 1964 GTO. They seem to do a good job of playing catch up once they pull their head out of the sand. Now as for the Silverado SS, GM took the most popular truck platform (ECSB) and tweaked it a little bit. Granted, it's not the best they could have done, but it's a nice truck, all the bells and whistles, and like all Chevys it can be modded. Silverado SS isn't for everyone, but fit the bill for me. I can put the wife in it in any weather and not have to post an instruction sheet on when and where to engage the 4WD.

I can drive it to Home Depot or the symphony. I am amazed how many people don't know about this truck. I knew more about the truck than the salesman did. I hope that GM sees this is a worthy platform, rather than all the promotion in their advertising of the SSR, Canyon, Aveo, etc. Ford and Chrysler at least have ads for the Lightning and the SRT10. GM has used the SS moniker on other less deserving vehicles in the past. Just my .02
 
hot rod truck said:
GM has a history of lagging behind Ford and Chrysler with the exception of the Corvette and the 1964 GTO.
what about the 454 SS trucks??? dodge and ford had nothing to compete with that back then...and also GM had the syclone/typhoon trucks too in the early 90s...ford started the lightning in like 93, after the original 454 SS trucks and syclone/typhoons stopped being produced...id say thats another place that GM wasn't laggin...
 
yeah in the early 90s GM did have Ford and Dodge against the wall with the 454 SS and Syclone and Typhoon, I mean the GMCs had turboed V6s that ran 13s all day, which is what the newer Ford Lightnings run now.

As far as the new SS Silvy goes, IMO Chevy did it wrong. If I was building an SS truck, I'd put an LS1 or something in a RCSB half ton with a beefy 4WD drivetrain instead of the AWD on current SSs. If you have a lot of power in a truck so you can race it, than I think you need 4wd so you can acually keep traction.
 
bcubed said:
When compared to the Lightning and the SRT-10 it consistently comes in last ... I think it all boils down to it's a more pratical everyday driver than either one of those, and it really should have not been built to be practical.
I agree with this. Sure it comes in last, but it is also way more pratical. Although the Lightning is just about as pratical as any other 2WD RCSB truck. The SRT-10 is just so expensive and inpracitcal (gas, 6speed). I'd love to have any of those trucks. I think Chevy should have gone balls to the wall on this truck, they didn't.
 
RedneckDude said:
what about the 454 SS trucks??? dodge and ford had nothing to compete with that back then...and also GM had the syclone/typhoon trucks too in the early 90s...ford started the lightning in like 93, after the original 454 SS trucks and syclone/typhoons stopped being produced...id say thats another place that GM wasn't laggin...

The 454SS trucks were actually just a tick faster than 350 trucks at that time,not very impressive for a big block. The Syclone/Typhoons were definately hot rods,my fault for that snafu. I really think GM is trying to build more mainstream vehicles, i.e. minivans,mid-sized SUVs, passenger cars or bling-bling such as Hummer, SSR and is not placing much emphasis on performance as Ford and Chrysler seem to be, unless you're looking for a Corvette. Remember this is the same company that killed the Impala SS in 1996 and the F-bodies in 2002 at a time that both cars were considered to be the best offerings out there in their market segments (edit: in performance & handling)

I'm not bashing GM,but I do wonder what market analysis they use before deciding what new vehicle offerings to unveil. My real point is GM usually has to be handed their ass by the other manufacturers before they respond to what's happening. BTW don't forget Buick T-types and Grand Nationals, go fast with class.
 
Well, I might as well throw my .02 cents in too. :D

While the SS is a nice truck, it's a disgrace to SS models of before. I'de much rather have a Lightning or modified 5.3L GMFS. On the other hand, the SS is much more capable of performing "truck-like" duties than the competion. It would have been better if they called it something but SS.....like Type-R. :crazy:
 
Mr.Badwrench said:
The SS has a ''H.O.'' 345 HP engine instead of the regular 6000's 300. 380 LB.-FT or torque on the SS compared to the reg. 6000's 360 its in the booklet from the dealership :read:

later- Dalton

my 6.0 is rated at 325hp
 
yea they have a bunch of different versions of 6.0 I believe these are right, but i may be wrong
300hp- HD trucks, 325hp denalis and H2, 345 escalades and SS trucks(and the trucks like humanzooms)
 
I saw the word "practical" tossed around a few times in here with regard to the new SS. Those of us interested in something practical would buy a civic. If I want performance, I'm not looking for a heavy, underpowered x-cab.
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top