Disclaimer

I dunno if I'd call it good. Interesting though. Monsanto is the devil.

I guess 2002 was the first year they didn't use the 4.3L V6 (not based on the S-Series). My bad. I don't know much about the 4.2L I6s. '02 was the first year for those engines, right? It's been on Ward's Top 10 engines from 2002-2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward%27s_10_Best_Engines

I don't know hard facts on when they need major overhauls... I mean, I know a guy right now that got one of these for like $200 with a blown up engine - I think he said it was spun bearings, due to that dreaded coolant+oil = bad that I mentioned earlier. It only had 70k or 80k on it. He's rebuilding it from the bottom up, but he builds drag race engines for a living, so it wasn't a big deal for him. So, YMMV, but they use these 4.3L V6's in the GM S-Trucks, Full-size trucks, Delivery vans, Marine, Power Generation, etc. http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/industrial/2010_4300_Industrial.pdf I mean, this single engine is pretty robust to handle all those duties. AWD system: I don't know the intricacies of that over the push-button 4WD on the other S-Trucks. My S-10 had an issue with the encoder motor that was replaced under warranty, but it serves the function of engaging/disengaging the transfer-case from the vacuum actuator - with an all-time AWD system, I don't know if you'd have that issue since it NEVER diengages. I don't think you'd have an issue with the transfer-case as long as you're not hotrodding it and cruising 85mph everywhere. The heat is what'll kill those. Fuel mileage. Ha! My last fuel stop I calculated 13.5MPG - Granted I only drive 2.5miles in city traffic to get to work. The best I ever got out of it, all-highway was 20mpg. I think you'll average around 15-16mpg assuming you keep your tires properly inflated and have a tailwind everywhere you go.

Hmm, ok. Either way, I'm not strapping either of my bikes to a dyno.

I'm assuming it's the 4.3L V6. Those engines are pretty bulletproof (Basically a GM350 with the front two cylinders lopped off) aside from known head gasket issues around the 60k-80k mark. So I'd definitely check the coolant and oil to make sure they are intermingling. It's not an expensive fix so much as it's a time consuming fix. I have snapped a front halfshaft before too, but those parts are cheap ($80) and pretty easy to replace - at least on the Gen1 S-Series (I did it on an '89 GMC Jimmy). The Gen1 bodies were prone to rust too, but the Bravada would be Gen2 so the rusting should be minimal. If the body and undercarriage are solid - it should be pretty reliable transportation. Hell, any of the vehicles based on the S-Series (or T-series) trucks should have TONS of cheap parts available for any fixes you need, they haven't changed any of the Gen2 stuff (other than cosmetics) since '95. Plus, being an Olds, you get all the interior luxury goodies that the GMCs and Chevy's didn't get - which can be blessings and curses on their own, more just inconvenience issues that don't affect drivability than anything else.

And I'm not going to hate on you for that. I understand that way of thinking (except for some people who just use it as a way of attention whoring) - I'm just too poor to subscribe to that life philosophy, or I'd be living it. Sucks being grounded in reality.

I look at it like the difference between a Miata and a Lotus. They're both capable and I'd rather have a Miata and a Camaro in my garage rather than just one Lotus.

Meh, the SuperDuke is nice, but the SV1k gets you 85% of what the Duke is at 1/2 the price.

Depending on weather, I might ride down to hang out, but I won't be tuning.

They just mix it in the horse, you're not supposed to drink directly from the tap.

I've always heard it as 'N*****-rigged.' But I guess you'll get that if you grew up in the south - ya know, Mansfield.

You guys crack me up.

Whatever, just like any Italian chick, Ducati's fall over and leak fluids if you look at them funny. Harleys are just Americanized versions of that, fatter but with the same results.

I guess I'm missing the paradigm. I know both parties are guilty of certain stereotypical political offenses... but to what extent? The Brennan letter was a rebuttal to criticism, specifically criticism in the name of political gain that is wrought with unfounded fear, as opposed to legitimate criticisms of a security policy. But, it's the GOP that issues blanket statements regardless of any and ALL criticism when calling Bush's policies into question that had no political motivation behind them, just a desire for answers and information. That's the difference. It's one thing for me to inquire about why you may've failed to renew your bike insurance. It's another for me to say you've failed to renew your insurance because you're a lazy deadbeat with no fiscal restraint because you spent money on this, that, and the other. One is an inquiry and the other is accusatory and drawn to a false conclusion based on the political motivation to paint you in a light that I see fit for my own purposes.

That's a great list of bikes I'd never want to own because I couldn't work on them or find parts myself.

Find the nearest 12 yr old, give him your credit card, and tell him what you want. Don't use cash! Police and parents alike might find that suspicious.

Sounds to me like you've already made your mind up... you're just looking for someone to agree with you. It's your life, take the reigns, carpe diem and all those other philosophical Latin phrases and shit.

What kinda radical blogosphere do you pull your 'information' from? This ad was in the center of your first link: , but seriously? Yea, I'm going to take that website serious

Doucher.

That was your point?? How do you get there -----^ from your OP here -----v ???

lulz

I saw that on Digg a few hours ago, but Websense is blocking that under "Social Media and Blogs" :angry face: I'll have to wait to get home to see it.

Now you're just changing the subject to find something to be pissed about... And once again, you're paraphrasing http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/07/hillary-clinton-says-al-qaeda-groups-pose-bigger-threat-than-ira/

No no no... see, you're doing the Republican thing and only paraphrasing for political effect. The entire quote is: "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda." Those additional words are important to the context. Then you make the false assumption that opposition is equivalent to advocating the opposite. Just because you're pro-choice doesn't mean you're anti-life.