- Jan 12, 2021
- Reaction score
- Saginaw Mi
I'm no environmentalist or nothin', but wasn't there something to do with CAFE? I mean sure the 5.7 doesn't drink much more than the 5.3, but when seen as a whole picture of all the trucks produced with a 5.7 vs. 5.3, those MPGs saved will definitely add up. My guess is even though the 5.7 might have been better suited for truck stuff (ik this statement is argumentative), the 5.3 drank a little less, so it was a better candidate?
Same reason we have these brand new heavy a** Silverados coming out with 4 cylinders in em, whatever will please the environmentalists on paper, and allow the company to produce ICE vehicles... you gotta do what you gotta do.
Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't automotive manufacturers have to support a vehicle they produce for like 10 years or something at minimum? My guess to that second question quoted is that GM already met their minimum requirement and moved on to the more relevant stuff for them (i.e. LS-based engines and resources for future projects). No point in spending money to keep the operations running if the majority of people at the time are not buying the replacement parts being produced.
CAFE had everything to do with it as did the EPA, getting emissions reduced, and MPG improved, so yes the 5.3L was a better choice.. And yes we support most vehicles for 10yrs.