Dealership sold me hail damaged truck

[KARNUT]

You’ve GOT TO STOP THIS KARNUT! Constantly trolling around having something to prove with your little 5.3, Geez [emoji6] LMFAO! We’re not back in the days of your prime motor years. Back in the days, I never had anything to prove but always seemed to be that someone was always trying to prove something of themselves to me. If I was to say that my Buick T Type (back in the days) or my slant nose Porsche (back in the days) was faster who gives a [emoji90], really. You need to join an old muscle car forum or start your own “Back in The Days” or better yet, a “Flex Fuel” forum. Btw, I did use E85 in my 14 flex fuel and it made no difference other than horrible gas mileage and sometimes ran so bad that when I punched it my butt raised off the seat. That’s when I promised myself never again a 5.3. Not knocking the 5.3 just not for someone that expects much more from a truck.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m only commenting on miss information. My little 5.3 was three rides ago. I’m running a blown little 383 now days. I owned an 87 T type for one week end didn’t like it. As far as past and present performance rides, I have both. Saying that a 6.2 is always better than a 5.3 shows your lack of knowledge. Your last paragraph definitely proves that. I definitely don’t feel the need to prove myself to you. It may save you from some embarrassment to cruise the other threads on this website in the performance sections that prove me right. You look foolish when you down play the 5.3.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TXGREEK]

I’m only commenting on miss information. My little 5.3 was three rides ago. I’m running a blown little 383 now days. I owned an 87 T type for one week end didn’t like it. As far as past and present performance rides, I have both. Saying that a 6.2 is always better than a 5.3 shows your lack of knowledge. Your last paragraph definitely proves that. I definitely don’t feel the need to prove myself to you. It may save you from some embarrassment to cruise the other threads on this website in the performance sections that prove me right. You look foolish when you down play the 5.3.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ooops, I didn’t get you to get off the couch now did I, lol and apparently you do have the desire to jump in attempting to prove something cause that’s what you do, misinform about the 5.3.
The truth, you just can’t handle the truth. The 5.3 is not a bad engine but the information you’re putting out is. I’ve already tested the 5.3 with E85 and it did nothing but waist my time with horrible mpg’s!
You’re Trolling, that’s what you’re doing here. 5.3= 355 HP, 6.2= 420 HP, there it’s spelled out for you and NO E85 is not going to make anyone’s 5.3 a faster performing vehicle just Fake News. Although, I will say that any engine with performance inducing fuel will out perform its counterpart just not the 6.2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KARNUT]

Ooops, I didn’t get you to get off the couch now did I, lol and apparently you do have the desire to jump in attempting to prove something cause that’s what you do, misinform about the 5.3.
The truth, you just can’t handle the truth. The 5.3 is not a bad engine but the information you’re putting out is. I’ve already tested the 5.3 with E85 and it did nothing but waist my time with horrible mpg’s!
You’re Trolling, that’s what you’re doing here. 5.3= 355 HP, 6.2= 420 HP, there it’s spelled out for you and NO E85 is not going to make anyone’s 5.3 a faster performing vehicle just Fake News. Although, I will say that any engine with performance inducing fuel will out perform its counterpart just not the 6.2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well your amusing if nothing else. Back to the couch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Osirus]

2 hours ago, KARNUT said:

 Reminds of my younger days when people who had 454s would laugh at my 350 Nova until they were handing me a C note.
 

 

My best racing experience was beating a dude's pride-and-joy Mopar he had been sinking most of paychecks into with my bone-stock, beat-up '78 2-door Caprice by about 2 car lengths.

[Hate Work]

1 hour ago, TXGREEK said:

 

You’ve GOT TO STOP THIS KARNUT! Constantly trolling around having something to prove with your little 5.3, Geez LMFAO! We’re not back in the days of your prime motor years. Back in the days, I never had anything to prove but always seemed to be that someone was always trying to prove something of themselves to me. If I was to say that my Buick T Type (back in the days) or my slant nose Porsche (back in the days) was faster who gives a , really. You need to join an old muscle car forum or start your own “Back in The Days” or better yet, a “Flex Fuel” forum. Btw, I did use E85 in my 14 flex fuel and it made no difference other than horrible gas mileage and sometimes ran so bad that when I punched it my butt raised off the seat. That’s when I promised myself never again a 5.3. Not knocking the 5.3 just not for someone that expects much more from a truck.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

^^^^THIS^^^^^

[duquephart]

3 hours ago, Loco-diablo said:

I'm not saying YOU 'spent thousands' more. I'm talking about my circumstance which at the time was 17% off, equaling about $8600 off MSRP to start before I even started wheeling and dealing, plus I got excellent trade value for my 2008 Tacoma with 185K miles on it that I drove for 10 years. The deal wasn't easy. I got up out of my chair and headed towards the door at least twice during negotiations if I remember correctly! LOL!

In the end, very happy with the deal and very happy with my LT.

 

My point is that you didn't have to get a CC LT in order to come up with a very good deal.

[SarahsGMC]

Thread ran its course.