What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

question for everyone

C

C1090blazer

1/2 ton status
Joined
May 9, 2008
Posts
200
Reaction score
0
Location
richmond missouri
IM THROWING IT OUT THERE FOR YALL TO DECIDE FOR ME .....I CAN GET A 2005 5.3 40,000k OR A 2003 6.0 130,000k .............the 6.0 is $200 more ...than the 5.3........so let me know what would you do???? :confused: ITS GOIN IN A 1990 K5 BLAZER DANA 60 14 BOLT COMBO
 
Hmm, tuff call. now if the 6.0 had the 40k. lol youd be set.

IF you get the 6.0 you going to go thru it? freshen up seals and gaskets?

Bigger is always better when it comes to K5s.
 
6.0, its a great motor, don't let 130k bother you. Mine had 130k on it when i traded it in, only things I ever replaced where the fuel pressure regulator and water pump gasket. It always burned 1qt of oil between changes, the 5.3 does too. You should see over 200k with proper maintenance.
 
I had a 5.3 in my burban which was pretty good. I now have 6.0 in the yukon which is bad a$$. I love it.
 
I have a 5.3 w/100K in my 2003 silverado 1500, doesn't burn oil and I'd love to put it in my K5. The 6l is a what I'd put in the Silverado if I had it, so I guess I'd have to say 6.0 if you can get all the harness, computer etc.?
 
My dad has the 5.3L and my friend has the 6.0L, I've driven both and agree the 6.0L has more output but the 5.3L is no slouch! I'd go with the lower mileage, cheaper 5.3L, your blazer isn't going to need anything more than what the 5.3 will have to offer.
 
manchildau65 said:
My dad has the 5.3L and my friend has the 6.0L, I've driven both and agree the 6.0L has more output but the 5.3L is no slouch! I'd go with the lower mileage, cheaper 5.3L, your blazer isn't going to need anything more than what the 5.3 will have to offer.
Click to expand...

Exactly

That 5.3 will be plenty nice, and 40k for cheaper? C'mon... No contest here. 5.3 all the way.
 
thats tough, but Id lean towards the 5.3, but then again will you ever put enough miles on it where the 6.0 would get tired?
 
What are you intentions for the motor?

daily driver or a wheelin' only rig thats sees little mileage?
 
well its goin to be for both ....im not goin to be scared to drive it ......but im not goin to thrash it either ....so both mildy ....thanks alot everyone .....i think im goin with the 5.3 put some headers on , cold air filter , then put a programmer on it ,,,, MAYBE a cam maybe .... it does have more power and torque than a stock 80's 350 does though..... and fuel injection .....guess you cant beeat it .....yeah you can ...all aluninam 427 will ....lol
 
It has ALOT more power than a stock 80's 350 my friend. You will be very pleased with that motor.

6.0's are awesome, and I'm sure can last 300k with the right owner, like any other smallblock... But I'm sure they can be toast at 150k like any other small block also, lol.
 
As a guy that always has to screw with stock stuff... and make them more of a pain in the arse than functional, leave the guts of the 5.3 stock and enjoy the already well engineered engine! You are talking LOTS more power than a stock 350 from the 80's (like you'll prob. break your 10 bolts if you thrash on it).
 
thanks alot manchildau65 i was thinking the exact same thing leave it stock besides some bolt on's and call the good with 40,000 miles
 
The 5.3 gets alot better miliage than the 6.0 if that is also a concern to you. I'd go with the 5.3 if it was me.
 
keep it efi it will get better gas milage more responsive , no pumping of the gas to get it started ...no tuning of the carb ..... keep it factory it will last almost a lifetime
 
yea, but to me its alot easier to swap to the carb intake & hei than it is to figure out the efi swap..and i've had water up to the bottom of my dash before(12'' lift on 44's) and my carbed 350 kept on running w/the tall k&n velocity stack air cleaner helped from getting water in that engine,..my whole rh valvecover & part of the intake was under water & didn't get any water in the oil! i was pulled out within 30 min, but i'm sure that much water would have fried an ecm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom