It's official: GMC Canyon V8 option confirmed
09-15-2007, 03:02 PM
#1
Launching!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SA Texas
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's official: GMC Canyon V8 option confirmed http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news...8official.html
We first reported back in June that sources at General Motors were telling us an eight cylinder engine option was coming for the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon - the same small block 5.3-liter 295-horsepower / 317 lb-ft V8 that's powering the 2008 Hummer H3 Alpha.
Well, now it's official - though probably not in quite the way GM hoped to make this long-anticipated announcement.
Head over to GMC's website to check out the specs for the 2008 GMC Canyon. Under 'Engines' you'll see the currently available 2.9-liter I4, 3.7-liter I5, and an, "Available V8 engine (available early 2008)."
http://www.gmc.com/canyon/canyon/specsStandard.jsp
We first reported back in June that sources at General Motors were telling us an eight cylinder engine option was coming for the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon - the same small block 5.3-liter 295-horsepower / 317 lb-ft V8 that's powering the 2008 Hummer H3 Alpha.
Well, now it's official - though probably not in quite the way GM hoped to make this long-anticipated announcement.
Head over to GMC's website to check out the specs for the 2008 GMC Canyon. Under 'Engines' you'll see the currently available 2.9-liter I4, 3.7-liter I5, and an, "Available V8 engine (available early 2008)."
http://www.gmc.com/canyon/canyon/specsStandard.jsp
09-15-2007, 04:51 PM
#3
10 second playa
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The official HP and Tq rating on the H3 Alpha is now 300 hp & 320 tq.
The web site still says 295 & 317 (I think), but it is no longer accurate.
The Canyon may be the same? It is not much of a diff. but it sounds better.
The web site still says 295 & 317 (I think), but it is no longer accurate.
The Canyon may be the same? It is not much of a diff. but it sounds better.
09-15-2007, 07:32 PM
#4
7 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Grove City Ohio/Port Washington L.I sometimes
Posts: 2,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They should have had a 5.3 in the first place.I test drove a 5 banger 4x4 crewcab and it was a turd.
With an LS engine the skies the limit for mods.
With an LS engine the skies the limit for mods.
Trending Topics
09-17-2007, 07:35 PM
#8
14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HFLDtA
Sounds great! Just as long as they dont put a 10 bolt in them.
09-18-2007, 10:06 AM
#10
Go to www.gmc.com and build one, THE 5.3 V8 IS A NO COST OPTION!!! Extra cab and Crew Cab only. And it can be installed in the base trim 4X4! 2WD requires SLE 3SA trim or above.
Guess we will see if the 4L60 and current diffs will last.
Guess we will see if the 4L60 and current diffs will last.
Last edited by 1CAMWNDR; 09-18-2007 at 10:14 AM.
09-18-2007, 04:28 PM
#11
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OMG it's the aluminum one too! lesee, ~300 hp, 3700 lbs, and a pricetag of $20K for an ECSB V8. If it had the same drag coefficient as the Camaro, I'd say this thing will run about as quick as an LT1 4th gen. BITCHIN'
09-18-2007, 04:58 PM
#12
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 18013
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.gmbuypower.com/pages/subm...C8EDFA21538BAB
automatic I5 ECSB 4wd are 3877
manual I5 ECSB 2wd are 3530
the 5 speed 2wd 5.3s will probably weigh about the same as the similarly optioned I5s. you're right, it should be right there with a base LT1.
automatic I5 ECSB 4wd are 3877
manual I5 ECSB 2wd are 3530
the 5 speed 2wd 5.3s will probably weigh about the same as the similarly optioned I5s. you're right, it should be right there with a base LT1.
09-19-2007, 03:53 PM
#13
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Spencerport, NY
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They got to do something to increase the sales on those. Too bad my ZR2 wasn't offered with that option. The 4.3L is a great motor but V8s are always better. Doesn't matter to me much now anyway, the next truck I get will be a GMC Sierra with a Diesel!
09-20-2007, 10:01 PM
#16
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: B-town
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by toneloc12345
I got 18-20mpg in my '06 Z71 with the 5.3. I would assume this truck would be able to do better being lighter and all..
09-21-2007, 12:38 PM
#17
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by toneloc12345
I got 18-20mpg in my '06 Z71 with the 5.3. I would assume this truck would be able to do better being lighter and all..
09-21-2007, 06:30 PM
#18
Originally Posted by Hydramatic
Did it have DOD, because my 2wd 4.8l gets somewhat less than that.
09-21-2007, 06:53 PM
#19
Adkoonerstrator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Deep in the seedy underworld of Koonerville
Posts: 21,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could get a little over 21mpg on the highway in my old '00 RCSB 2wd 5.3L. Like Mike said above though I had to keep myself under control or it would drop a couple mpg.
A ECSB 4wd Colorado/Canyon will be about 500lbs lighter then my old truck was so it should get decent mileage.
A ECSB 4wd Colorado/Canyon will be about 500lbs lighter then my old truck was so it should get decent mileage.