1991 Chevrolet C1500, the gas saver

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

TravisR

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
72
Reaction score
31
Location
Arkansas
View media item 31527View media item 31528
I have a ECSB K2500, but I wanted something a little better on gas for when I don't need 4wd or to pull something heavy. So I was on the lookout for RCSB V6/5 speed C1500. I found one, and talked them down on the price but still probably didn't get that great of a deal. It had a rod knock and they wanted $1800! I got it for $1200 and decided to try to rebuild the V6.

I got the engine torn down and dropped the block and crankshaft at the machine shop. He said it would be about 2 weeks. Two months later, I was back picking up an untouched block and crankshaft. While waiting on the machine shop to do nothing, I found a V6 out of a 1991 at a salvage yard.

Currently, I'm wrapping up the V6 drop-in details (plugs, wires, fluids). Hopefully I'll be driving it this month. I'll keep updating with work I do on the truck.

Next steps:
* Find some wider (8"+) rims
* Repaint (at least the hood and top of cab)
* Bed liner
 
Last edited:

Eveready

I'm Awesome
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
1,640
Location
North Carolina
It never fails to amaze me, the number of people who claim to be "in business" but who are happy to do nothing instead of taking money you freely offer them for their "service". I guess you should be glad they didn't try to charge you for storing your block for two months.
 

thz71

Stock SUCKS!
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
18,181
Reaction score
1,205
Location
Iowa
I hope it's was REALLY REALLY clean for that much.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
 

Sparkysikes

I'm Awesome
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
387
Reaction score
133
Location
San Diego California
Wider tires increases rolling resistance thus worse mpg. But not a huge difference. I'll take the look & stance. And the cornering ability. Looks good
 

Blackwater

Engineering Geinus
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
324
Reaction score
80
Location
Lawton, OK
Honestly, Why put another Stock replacement V6 in it? I would have put a 5.3L more power and better econ.
 

TravisR

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
72
Reaction score
31
Location
Arkansas
Honestly, Why put another Stock replacement V6 in it? I would have put a 5.3L more power and better econ.

A 5.3L wouldn't get better gas mileage would it? I just want to drive it and don't need more power any time soon, so I went with the quickest and easiest solution.
 

Blackwater

Engineering Geinus
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
324
Reaction score
80
Location
Lawton, OK
With the architecture of the engine, It has a longer skirt on the block and they have the exhaust and intake set to EIEIEI instead of the traditional EIIEEIIE keeps the engine cooler and more balanced. The intake is much more improved as well. It also has hypertonic aluminum pistons and aluminum heads. the V6 weighs the same with all its iron everything. Also, I learned over the years that a V6 should not be in a full size truck. I have two uncles. On had a 1990 chevy C1500 5.7 700R4. It was always loaded with tools and junk. It got 15 mpg. My other uncle with a 1991 C1500 V6. empty truck got 14 mpg. My truck at the time was still stock 1993 with the 5.7L and NV3500 got 17mpg to 18 depending on how I drove. I feel the V6 is not strong enough to move the truck around efficiently. My 2007 GMC C1500 crew cab SLT gets 17 city and 20.5 highway (from the DIC(Driver Information Center)).

I understand that keeping your truck stock is cool but if your looking for econ and affordability then go with the 5.3. even if you get a 4.8 you can later take 5.3 crank and rods and keep the 4.8 pistons and have you a H.O. 5.3L. It not hard to get a LS style engine and computer and wire it to be a stand alone system. If your interested I have 5 books in my possession on swapping one in anything. I don't mind sharing the info.
 

Blackwater

Engineering Geinus
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
324
Reaction score
80
Location
Lawton, OK
Looks like the 4.3 is still better fuel economy:

'03 5.3 L Auto: 13/17 mpg
'91 4.3 L Auto: 15/20 mpg

Link: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=8144&id=18849&id=8142

That all depends on what you put them in. I can se a S10 getting those numbers. and the 03, is it 4X4 crew cab?
My 07 5.3 Flex fuel does get better than the 03 numbers you provided. Note: you MPG goes down when using E85. I was getting 14 city and 17 highway with E85. E85 is cheaper but when you factor in how much you use, you get more power and econ from regular. That and GM advises to use Regular when towing and hauling.
 
Top