randytimes

I found an 06 Chevy Crew cab K1500 4x4 that has 183k miles on an auction. It was a fleet vehicle and from 'looking at it', it's pretty straight. I'm curious about the high mileage on the 5.3L. What problems would I run into with higher mileage on these trucks (engine/tranny/etc...)?? The check engine light is also on. First hand experience responses would be great. Any help actually would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

-Randy

lucian*91

really high mileage on a 5.3 is not really a concern, these engines can take a lot of abuse and will like for a long time. mine was recently purchased at 171k miles. i have has many buddies with the 5.3 reach over 300k with just regular routine maintenance. ive even heard of a few getting just over 400k and they still ran strong but were taken to the cash for clunkers to get a newer truck. i wouldn't worry about mileage. check to see what the ses light is about and go from there

delicel

The CARS program achieved the objectives set out by Congress to increase automotive sales and aid the environment. In just a few short weeks of sales, nearly 680,000 older vehicles were replaced by new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The nation's economy benefited immediately from this stimulus program, which caused a distinct upward movement in GDP and created or saved tens of thousands of jobs at a very critical time in the recovery process.

Bdoser

I bought mine with 130k, all it needed was new spark plugs, brakes, and a rotor, other than that mine drives like it was brand new.

RacerX

There is no proof of anything posted here expect the phrase "nearly 680K were replaced". Everything else is open to interpretation. We dont know if they bought more fuel efficient cars or not. All we really know is they brought in old cars and got new ones, which ones? Who knows. We dont know if the nation's economy benefitted immediately because the program wasnt continued. And it couldnt have saved tens of thousands of jobs cumulatively because many dealerships still had to fold and many plants were still shuttered.

JK23112

The "cash for clunkers" program merely created a dearth of 'affordable' used vehicles normally purchased by teenagers, people going through rough times, the unemployed or part-time workers.

How long before they come up with another government program to "help" us get out of another imbroglio that they created? Oy vey!

Regarding the 5.3L, I would not sweat it. It is proving to be as reliable an engine as the old "small block 350" that it replaced. I have 85k on my used '04 Silverado and the damn thing runs like it is new. So far, I only seem to be burning up 1/2 a quart of synthetic oil between changes (every 3,000 miles).

I am a Ford guy at heart and had some resevations about getting a Chebby, but like it so far. I bought it because a friend of mine has a 2002 Silverado that he bought new and now has about 150,000 trouble-free miles on it. I hope I can get the same service from mine - and then some!

P.S. See if you can check the "hours" on the engine, as well as the mileage. That might give a clue as to how many city miles it has or if there was a lot of idling done with it. Good luck!

RacerX

Thats not true. The cars that were tendered in the program were destroyed. They had to be permanently disabled in order for the dealer to get paid. So what they would do is pour silicate phosphate in the radiator and as it would get hot it would seized the block. Then they would write C4C on the windows and they would trucked off to be crushed. These cars never made it to a used car lot anywhere.

6LCHEVYZ71

I think he meant it cut down on the supply of affordable vehicles teenagers and po' folks usually buy because they could not be used after being C4C'd.

JK23112

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Nice to see that someone knows "dearth" was not a character in Star Wars who breathed through a respirator.


The C4C created a shortage of affordable (a relative term, I know) used cars and trucks. My old Nissan Sentra's value has jumped somewhat because of it.


Too bad that a lot of vehicles were taken out of service prematurely with C4C - and we cannot forget about the "carbon footprint" that is now larger because of all the rew materials that will be needed to make new cars. This is especially ironic because most of the 'enviro-left" favored the program. It is getting harder and harder to rationalize much of what goes on in Washington these days.

RacerX

I m sorry, I understood what you meant, but I lost my internet connection before I could flesh out my point. What I meant to say was that C4C didnt matter at all because there isnt a shortage now of used cars. Those cars, all 700,000, didnt affect the general pool of used cars available nationwide. Clearly we can go to Ebay, AutoTrader, or Craigslist among others to see some good vehicles along with many, many crapboxes. Those cars that were destroyed were from all classes and makers and still there is a worldwide glut of used cars. I think what affects the ability of the poor or younger, newer driver to get a good car is more likely low income and weak credit. The fact that the C4C autos never saw a car lot or a parts recycler didnt affect anything. If we wanted to see the availability decrease in the slightest, the government should have offered the program for longer than 1 month up to maybe a year up to 18 months. And the guidelines should have given preference for fuel efficiency and content from bio-degradable or recycled parts, but that didnt happen.