5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

Rigo's 70 C10 · 08-08-2008, 01:39 PM

Hello,
I am going to remove the 283 that is in my 1970 and i want to put in a 5.3 or a 6.0L engine. Can you get decent HP out of a 5.3? Also, are either of these a hastle to install in my 70? Will they even fit? I have the option of a 5.3 or a 6.0, both drive by wire out of a 2007 suv. If i go with the 5.3 can i install a 4l80e on it, or are those transmissions only for the 6.0? I have read some 5.7LS1 threads, but i dont know if they apply to my build. Lots of questions, i know, thanks.
Rigo

Anybody from Roswell, NM? Trying to find like intrests in my area?

Ackattack · 08-08-2008, 02:03 PM

You should install either

Several companies make adapters to install these engines. I made my own....not tough at all.

The 6.0L will be able to make more power, but not that much more really. Both are good, capable engines. The 5.3L are usually A LOT cheaper though, but if you can get a good deal on the 6.0L, go for it.

The 5.3L can be bored out to 5.7L and accept stock LS1 pistons too. I did a little research, and according to some of the newer truck guys the 5.3L can make around 370RWHP with all the goodies naturally aspirated. The 6.0L can make over 450RWHP. Both will stand up to boost or nitrous too.

The 4L80E will fit behind either engine. It's easiest to use the harness for the 4L80E though (the harness is the same as far as the engine is concerned, but different for the tranny).

Rigo's 70 C10 · 08-08-2008, 03:09 PM

I just spent the last hour reading your build thread and its awesome! I am going to stay on top of your build.

Thanks

Sicmaro · 08-08-2008, 03:38 PM

i did the 5.3 in mine. all stock i put down 221 rwhp on the dyno and 285 tq. it runs great, i have my camaro to go fast!!

check the link in my thread.....

**steelhorse** · 08-08-2008, 04:25 PM

Go with the 6.0.The is no replacement for displacement.

DirtyLarry · 08-08-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steelhorse

The is no replacement for displacement.

Exactly! Go with an 8.1L!

You can't beat the stock HP and torque from an uncorked 8.1L running on the proper emissions free calibrations. Plus they are a direct replacement for any small block (or big block) and will accommodate any year of big block header or exhaust manifold.

The hard part is finding an 8.1L

Pl4yboy · 08-08-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyLarry

Exactly! Go with an 8.1L!

You can't beat the stock HP and torque from an uncorked 8.1L running on the proper emissions free calibrations. Plus they are a direct replacement for any small block (or big block) and will accommodate any year of big block header or exhaust manifold.

The hard part is finding an 8.1L

And also, they make absolutely ZERO aftermarket parts for them. If I'm not mistaken, the 4.8/5.3/6.0 are all the same block design. You can bore the 5.3 to a 6.0 if you'd like. Either way, I know people making 375+ to the ground with 5.3s and 475+ to the ground on 6.0s, before spray. Go with the 6.0 if you are wanting the power... you won't regret it.

DirtyLarry · 08-08-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pl4yboy

And also, they make absolutely ZERO aftermarket parts for them. If I'm not mistaken, the 4.8/5.3/6.0 are all the same block design. You can bore the 5.3 to a 6.0 if you'd like. Either way, I know people making 375+ to the ground with 5.3s and 475+ to the ground on 6.0s, before spray. Go with the 6.0 if you are wanting the power... you won't regret it.

You don’t need aftermarket parts for a stock engine that makes over 400 HP and close to 500 lb ft of torque when properly programmed. Actually, there are a small amount of aftermarket parts if the stock HP isn't enough to suit yoru fancy but they are pricey.

I just finished this swap and would put it up against any stock 5.3L or 6.0L. Even mowing through the gears with a HD truck manual transmission I can attest it is much quicker than my bored and whored 396 in my 68' GMC.

70rs/ss · 08-08-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyLarry

You don’t need aftermarket parts for a stock engine that makes over 400 HP and close to 500 lb ft of torque when properly programmed. Actually, there are a small amount of aftermarket parts if the stock HP isn't enough to suit yoru fancy but they are pricey.

I just finished this swap and would put it up against any stock 5.3L or 6.0L. Even mowing through the gears with a HD truck manual transmission I can attest it is much quicker than my bored and whored 396 in my 68' GMC.

Picts!! I saw an 8.1 spill its guts due to some forced induction, but I'd guess in rock stock they ought to run like a scalded dog!! They are out there and not too much interest in them as they are :gas hogs" so?

Jerry Jones · 08-08-2008, 04:47 PM

No substitute for cubic inches (except cubic dollars)

**Hart_Rod** · 08-08-2008, 05:19 PM

I've got 5.3's in both of my projects (69 Suburban & 67 4 Door CrewCab). As stated above the 5.3's are cheaper. The only donwside other than cost that I've heard about the 6.0's is fuel mileage (and that may not be a concern for you). There are alot of different ways to go with the install and it will require $$$$ and time. If you want to spend less money it will take more time and vice versa. Either way it is not as cheap and easy as throwing a stock motor in there. Do lots of research and come up with the best combination (time/money) for you. The way I chose was not the cheapest, but at this point in my life, time is more valuable. If you have any specific questions let me know. Here's a picture of my 69 SuperBurb and the CrewCab,

.

andresco50 · 08-08-2008, 08:03 PM

That engines are LS1 and you can install a 4l60e or the 4l80, I have a 5.3 on my 2001 sylvy y love the power

shifty · 08-08-2008, 11:14 PM

i doesn't matter. get whatever is cheapest, 4.8, 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, they're all going to BLOW AWAY your 283 and get great gas mileage.

Sinisterspeed · 08-09-2008, 01:07 AM

Well, I never done a swap with one of these motors. I have the 6.0 in my 01 crew. Its an ok motor. It sucks gas like no tomorrow. I have a couple friends that have the 8.1 in the same truck. They get 1 MPG better city and Hwy with the same set up I have. Now my Dad went out and bought a 06 1500 4x4 Crew with a 5.3 it also has 35" tires and stock gears. It gets 4-5 MPG better then my truck and feels like it has more power. Last time we went camping he was pulling approx 6500-7500 lbs and I was pulling 9k lbs. I figured I would run away from him on the mountain with 4.10 gears and the 6.0. It didn't happen. He was right behind me the whole way up the 6% grade.

IMHO 8.1 if your going to tow often then the 5.3 if your going to tow once in awhile or not at all.

sameyrasmea72 · 08-09-2008, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinisterspeed

Well, I never done a swap with one of these motors. I have the 6.0 in my 01 crew. Its an ok motor. It sucks gas like no tomorrow. I have a couple friends that have the 8.1 in the same truck. They get 1 MPG better city and Hwy with the same set up I have. Now my Dad went out and bought a 06 1500 4x4 Crew with a 5.3 it also has 35" tires and stock gears. It gets 4-5 MPG better then my truck and feels like it has more power. Last time we went camping he was pulling approx 6500-7500 lbs and I was pulling 9k lbs. I figured I would run away from him on the mountain with 4.10 gears and the 6.0. It didn't happen. He was right behind me the whole way up the 6% grade.

IMHO 8.1 if your going to tow often then the 5.3 if your going to tow once in awhile or not at all.

WOW! I am just the opposite. I love my new 6.0, and I would never have another 5.3. I get 17-19 MPG Highway and my dad has never gotten over 18 with his 5.3. I just drug home a 68 BB GMC on My heavy trailer nd the 6.0 never broke a stride, while the 5.3 sometimes goes into 2nd with an empty trailer going over an overpass. My truck is a 1/2 ton/3.73 Iguess with the 4.10 yours must be at least a 3/4 ton. I have heard from a lot of people that the 6.0 gets horrible MPG, but I can live with 17-19 anyday.

Sinisterspeed · 08-13-2008, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sameyrasmea72

WOW! I am just the opposite. I love my new 6.0, and I would never have another 5.3. I get 17-19 MPG Highway and my dad has never gotten over 18 with his 5.3. I just drug home a 68 BB GMC on My heavy trailer nd the 6.0 never broke a stride, while the 5.3 sometimes goes into 2nd with an empty trailer going over an overpass. My truck is a 1/2 ton/3.73 Iguess with the 4.10 yours must be at least a 3/4 ton. I have heard from a lot of people that the 6.0 gets horrible MPG, but I can live with 17-19 anyday.

Your right. I thought I put that in there. But, looking back at it I didn't. Mine is a 2001 2500HD 6.0L 4L80E 4.10 gear and 35" toyo tire.

When I had 33" tires on it. I got 13.8 tops on the highway. I didn't think that was to bad for a big truck.
But, when I went to the 35" tires. I don't even want to know. I used to be able to go 4 days on a tank ($85) at the time. Now with the 35's I got about 2.5 days at $107 a tank (at the new and improved gas prices

). Needless to say I don't drive it back and forth to work anymore. BTW its 37mi each way if you want to do the math.

**N2TRUX** · 08-09-2008, 05:38 PM

6.0+heads,cam,long tubes=500HP. Need I say more?

TyJ · 08-09-2008, 06:39 PM

I put a 6.0 in my Burb and what HartRod said is correct, gas mileage is not THAT great, still way better than my stock 350, and the Burb is heavy, but I probably could have squeaked an extra 2-4 mpg with a 5.3, and with tuning I bet the power wouldn't be that different, maybe torque while towing or under acceleration
but I might opt for 5.3 I guess is what I'm saying?

billyjo · 08-11-2008, 11:15 AM

I agree also, the 6.0 mileage isn't that great. If I had it to do over I would've done all the same mods I have to a 5.3 because I think I probly would've gotten better mileage.

I know that I have read and heard great stories about mileage. I have a company truck that is a 2001 1/2 ton extended cab 2wd with a 5.3 and it gets about 15. With the 6.0 in my K/5 I get about 13.

Bill

Rigo's 70 C10 · 08-11-2008, 03:53 PM

Guys,
As always, you have given great advise! I am currently waitin go hear on prices for a 5.3 or 6.0. Borardmember 70 RS/SS pointed me in this direction and i am waiting to hear what the prices are going to be. I have to say though, I am probably going to go with the 6.0. I would hate to spend all that time and money to find out that i want more (stock)power (i cant spray it 24/7). Also, I have to PM Nate from Porterbuilt. I need to know if i can use one of these engines with his dropmember set-up. I hope i can. His stuff is off the hook! Guys, i will be starting my project soon and will be on here often. I know i can count on you guys to give great advice and play devils advocate on every and all issues of my build. Thanks for all your honest responses.
L8R,
RC

jkade · 08-11-2008, 08:16 PM

pretty good thread here
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=233302

Sold this one back in the winter, it had a 4.8 that I made a 5.7 using ls1 internals. Lets just say it was a hand full from take off

YouTube - 67 C10 LS1 Magnaflows

DirtyLarry · 08-12-2008, 12:55 AM

Before the MEFI-4 engine controller fine tuning. The 8.1L sounds rather strange through exhaust compared to older big blocks due to the 8.1L (and other Gen III small block engines) having an untraditional Chevrolet engine firing order (the poor audio doesn't help either). I need a new video now that the calibrations are more dialed in but need a camera man do to so!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avyjEr4bnGA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAYW1OXyEIU

texanidiot25 · 08-12-2008, 01:58 AM

Or lets get really wild: 7L, 427ci, 505hp, 490 ftlb, 6000+ RPM, LS7

Nice sounding truck Dirty Larry

jorgensensc · 08-13-2008, 09:31 AM

I don't know guys. The trailblazer has the 6.0 and we get around 13-14 mpg. I think it would be a little better in a lighter (less than 6k lb) truck. It scoots the Trailblazer along pretty quick, I couldn't imagine the speed in a swb truck weighing in around 3800lb. I think i would spend the extra money on the 6.0 if you are really after power. If you are wanting mpg I would get the 5.3 just because it would be cheaper initial purchase and the gas would be cheaper also. Just my opinion though.
Shawn

boostat4500 · 08-14-2008, 12:48 AM

I'll chime in on the gas mileage thing just for reference. My last tank was about 60% highway at about 70-75mph. I got about 13.5 mpg. This is with the 6.0L, 38x15.50 tires, and 5.13 gears in a heavy ass Suburban. I gained about 2 mpg with the 5.13's vs 4.10's that I used to have. I would highly recomend the 6.0 over the 5.3, so much more potential for cheap.

08-08-2008, 01:39 PM	#1
Rigo's 70 C10 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New Mexico Posts: 106	5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? Hello, I am going to remove the 283 that is in my 1970 and i want to put in a 5.3 or a 6.0L engine. Can you get decent HP out of a 5.3? Also, are either of these a hastle to install in my 70? Will they even fit? I have the option of a 5.3 or a 6.0, both drive by wire out of a 2007 suv. If i go with the 5.3 can i install a 4l80e on it, or are those transmissions only for the 6.0? I have read some 5.7LS1 threads, but i dont know if they apply to my build. Lots of questions, i know, thanks. Rigo Anybody from Roswell, NM? Trying to find like intrests in my area?

08-08-2008, 02:03 PM	#2
Ackattack Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Valley Center KS Posts: 3,525	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? You should install either Several companies make adapters to install these engines. I made my own....not tough at all. The 6.0L will be able to make more power, but not that much more really. Both are good, capable engines. The 5.3L are usually A LOT cheaper though, but if you can get a good deal on the 6.0L, go for it. The 5.3L can be bored out to 5.7L and accept stock LS1 pistons too. I did a little research, and according to some of the newer truck guys the 5.3L can make around 370RWHP with all the goodies naturally aspirated. The 6.0L can make over 450RWHP. Both will stand up to boost or nitrous too. The 4L80E will fit behind either engine. It's easiest to use the harness for the 4L80E though (the harness is the same as far as the engine is concerned, but different for the tranny). __________________ Project Bruiser: 68 Pro-Touring C-10 5.3L / 4L60E Project Ironhide: 97 GMC Crew Cab 4x4 Cummins SOLD: '69 GMC 1/2T SWB TBI'd: Project No Buck Assembly Manual Index Sign up Thread!!! Factory Service Manual Index Last edited by Ackattack; 08-08-2008 at 02:05 PM.

08-08-2008, 03:09 PM	#3
Rigo's 70 C10 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New Mexico Posts: 106	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? I just spent the last hour reading your build thread and its awesome! I am going to stay on top of your build. Thanks

08-08-2008, 03:38 PM	#4
Sicmaro Always wrenching!! Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 301	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? i did the 5.3 in mine. all stock i put down 221 rwhp on the dyno and 285 tq. it runs great, i have my camaro to go fast!! check the link in my thread..... __________________ 71 C-10 5.3L/4L60E 72 Camaro LS6/4L60E 06 Duramax 19 RZR XP4 turbo Dynamix 56 Belair 5.3/4L60E swap in progress

08-08-2008, 04:25 PM	#5
steelhorse Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Franklinton NC Posts: 1,309	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? Go with the 6.0.The is no replacement for displacement.

08-08-2008, 04:47 PM	#10
Jerry Jones Happy Camper Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Northern California Posts: 8,408	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? No substitute for cubic inches (except cubic dollars) __________________ RIP El Jay! Love you brother!

08-08-2008, 05:19 PM	#11
Hart_Rod ************* Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pensacola, FL Posts: 17,835	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? I've got 5.3's in both of my projects (69 Suburban & 67 4 Door CrewCab). As stated above the 5.3's are cheaper. The only donwside other than cost that I've heard about the 6.0's is fuel mileage (and that may not be a concern for you). There are alot of different ways to go with the install and it will require $$$$ and time. If you want to spend less money it will take more time and vice versa. Either way it is not as cheap and easy as throwing a stock motor in there. Do lots of research and come up with the best combination (time/money) for you. The way I chose was not the cheapest, but at this point in my life, time is more valuable. If you have any specific questions let me know. Here's a picture of my 69 SuperBurb and the CrewCab, . Attached Images __________________ Rob - https://www.instagram.com/hart_rod_c10 As Iron Sharpens Iron, So One Man Sharpens Another. Proverbs 27:17 FOR SALE: DBW pedal bracket - http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=651123 FOR SALE: Hood Brackets http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=679945 1987 Silverado SWB - 34.5K original miles http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=801834 1969 SuperBurb - http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=200387 1968 Farm truck - http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=358692 1968 SWB - http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=551258 1948 Chevy - http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...=122164&page=3 Last edited by Hart_Rod; 08-08-2008 at 05:32 PM.

08-08-2008, 08:03 PM	#12
andresco50 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Lakeworth, Fl Posts: 633	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? That engines are LS1 and you can install a 4l60e or the 4l80, I have a 5.3 on my 2001 sylvy y love the power __________________ 2001 silverado 2wd 2003 silverado 4wd 1975 scottsdale c10 (project)

08-08-2008, 11:14 PM	#13
shifty Questionable Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 13,376	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? i doesn't matter. get whatever is cheapest, 4.8, 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, they're all going to BLOW AWAY your 283 and get great gas mileage. __________________ If I've got anything up for grabs, it'll be here: 7-hole gauge cluster for a 67-72 p/u FREE (link) I can't check the forum daily. If I don't reply to you within 24 hours, drop me a PM! I'm (hopefully) still alive and will reply faster to a PM.

08-09-2008, 01:07 AM	#14
Sinisterspeed Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Gales Creek, Oregon Posts: 619	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? Well, I never done a swap with one of these motors. I have the 6.0 in my 01 crew. Its an ok motor. It sucks gas like no tomorrow. I have a couple friends that have the 8.1 in the same truck. They get 1 MPG better city and Hwy with the same set up I have. Now my Dad went out and bought a 06 1500 4x4 Crew with a 5.3 it also has 35" tires and stock gears. It gets 4-5 MPG better then my truck and feels like it has more power. Last time we went camping he was pulling approx 6500-7500 lbs and I was pulling 9k lbs. I figured I would run away from him on the mountain with 4.10 gears and the 6.0. It didn't happen. He was right behind me the whole way up the 6% grade. IMHO 8.1 if your going to tow often then the 5.3 if your going to tow once in awhile or not at all. __________________ There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they start and so on. 70 GMC Longhorn (A.K.A Money Bucket) 57 Chev 3100 05 Chevy LLY Dmax. 67 Chevy Camaro Dad's Budget Build 55 My Longhorn Build

08-09-2008, 05:38 PM	#17
N2TRUX Happy to be here Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Cypress, TX Posts: 39,023	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? 6.0+heads,cam,long tubes=500HP. Need I say more? __________________ Follow me on Facebook and Instagram @N2trux.com Articles- "Jake" the 84 to 74 crewcab "Elwood" the77_Remix 85 GMC Sierra "Scarlett" "Refining Sierra"

08-09-2008, 06:39 PM	#18
TyJ Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Posts: 61	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? I put a 6.0 in my Burb and what HartRod said is correct, gas mileage is not THAT great, still way better than my stock 350, and the Burb is heavy, but I probably could have squeaked an extra 2-4 mpg with a 5.3, and with tuning I bet the power wouldn't be that different, maybe torque while towing or under acceleration but I might opt for 5.3 I guess is what I'm saying? __________________ 72 K20 Suburban 6.0L, 4L80, 4Wheel Disc Brakes, Hydroboost, In a Million Pieces(edit) A little closer to done

08-11-2008, 11:15 AM	#19
billyjo Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Vancouver, WA Posts: 95	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? I agree also, the 6.0 mileage isn't that great. If I had it to do over I would've done all the same mods I have to a 5.3 because I think I probly would've gotten better mileage. I know that I have read and heard great stories about mileage. I have a company truck that is a 2001 1/2 ton extended cab 2wd with a 5.3 and it gets about 15. With the 6.0 in my K/5 I get about 13. Bill __________________ 1972 K/5 4x4, Radixed LS1 6.0, 428HP/445TQ, Lingenfelter GT2-3 cam, WCCH 90mm J-Tube, LS2 90mm TB, Stainless Works Headers, NV4500, 4.56 gears, Detroit Lockers, 14 bolt FF, Dana 60, 4 wheel disk Hydro Brakes, dual electric fans, Autometer guages, 4" lift, Zero Rates, Weld Evo Velocity XT8 wheels, 35x12.5x17 Super Swamper SSR's..... http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...tos/?start=all

08-11-2008, 03:53 PM	#20
Rigo's 70 C10 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New Mexico Posts: 106	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? Guys, As always, you have given great advise! I am currently waitin go hear on prices for a 5.3 or 6.0. Borardmember 70 RS/SS pointed me in this direction and i am waiting to hear what the prices are going to be. I have to say though, I am probably going to go with the 6.0. I would hate to spend all that time and money to find out that i want more (stock)power (i cant spray it 24/7). Also, I have to PM Nate from Porterbuilt. I need to know if i can use one of these engines with his dropmember set-up. I hope i can. His stuff is off the hook! Guys, i will be starting my project soon and will be on here often. I know i can count on you guys to give great advice and play devils advocate on every and all issues of my build. Thanks for all your honest responses. L8R, RC

08-12-2008, 01:58 AM	#23
texanidiot25 Eat My Rust Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cypress, Texas Posts: 3,362	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? Or lets get really wild: 7L, 427ci, 505hp, 490 ftlb, 6000+ RPM, LS7 Nice sounding truck Dirty Larry



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

08-13-2008, 09:31 AM	#24
jorgensensc Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cypress, Tx Posts: 4,005	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? I don't know guys. The trailblazer has the 6.0 and we get around 13-14 mpg. I think it would be a little better in a lighter (less than 6k lb) truck. It scoots the Trailblazer along pretty quick, I couldn't imagine the speed in a swb truck weighing in around 3800lb. I think i would spend the extra money on the 6.0 if you are really after power. If you are wanting mpg I would get the 5.3 just because it would be cheaper initial purchase and the gas would be cheaper also. Just my opinion though. Shawn __________________ 1972 C20 Suburban- Big Blue Betty '56 Chevy Bel Air Sedan- Frame up Restoration -What would you attempt to achieve if you knew you could not fail?- -I Refuse To Tiptoe Through Life, Only To Arrive Safely At Death's Door- R.I.P. EAST SIDE LOW LIFE

08-14-2008, 12:48 AM	#25
boostat4500 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Reno, NV Posts: 346	Re: 5.3 or 6.0 in my 1970? I'll chime in on the gas mileage thing just for reference. My last tank was about 60% highway at about 70-75mph. I got about 13.5 mpg. This is with the 6.0L, 38x15.50 tires, and 5.13 gears in a heavy ass Suburban. I gained about 2 mpg with the 5.13's vs 4.10's that I used to have. I would highly recomend the 6.0 over the 5.3, so much more potential for cheap. __________________ 1971 Suburban 4x4, LQ4 6.0L, 4L80E, etc.

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.