Jonofmac
-
Posts
68 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Articles
RPO
Store
Blogs
Everything posted by Jonofmac
-
Of course it varies per vehicle. Some systems are more advanced than others. The AAA research article noted that there was no pinging recorded on any of their test vehicles except for the Audi. They were extremely thorough with all of their testing (it's a 70ish page document). Their data shows that for the 6.2, there was no pinging running 87. The only noticable difference was a fuel mileage decrease on flat roads (due to not using DFM as much on regular) and a 2% power loss above 4k rpm. They tested driving in 0, 2%, 4%, and 6% grades. I don't know if you've been on a 6% grade, but it's pretty significant load on the engine, and no pinging was observed. GM likely recommends premium so that their published mpg average is higher and peak HP is a bit better. This makes their product look more competitive and raises their fleet average mpg (an important metric according to the EPA). It's up to you to run whatever you want. I, personally, run premium. All my other vehicles require premium (not recommended, but required) so I'm used to using it. I used it in my old truck (heads, cammed, stalled, built trans 2500 LQ4 that I built), and this truck gets double the gas mileage, so I don't mind. Maybe when gas gets expensive again, I might consider regular. But right now, who cares. I'm just saying that extensive 3rd party research was done on the 6.2, and it appears that the only ill effect is a reduction in MPG. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Indeed is a good bump for just fuel. Nuts! Shame they didn't support flex on the 6.2. Weird thing is it has an ethanol content sensor it looks like (my 6.2 reports having an ethanol sensor and shows the ethanol content). Not sure if it's just fixed in the tune to always report ~10%. I don't have ethanol to try it with. The 6.2 would definitely benefit from ethanol seeing as it's higher compression than the 5.3 and the 5.3 picks up ~30 HP from ethanol... Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Yeah we've confirmed the payload stuff. The website I was using apparently has incorrect info. When you refer to the trailering guide, you can see this difference. Edmunds should update. Your power figures are incorrect. Not sure where you got those 5.3 numbers, but GM does not advertise it that high. However if they did have a unit that was making that power, it would explain the unusually fast 0-60 time for the 5.3 that CnD reported. I found the car and driver article. Something seems off there to me. Must be some difference in vehicles outside of just drivetrain. Every other article and independently posted number I found (CnD was one of the last for me to find, granted, I was looking at Sierra's, not Silverados), and the gap was larger. I saw the numbers I stated. Another comparison between the same truck configuration (crew cab vs crew cab) with engine swaps was at elevation, showed a 0-60 of 7.7 compared to 9.2 sec. I could not find a single reference anywhere else that showed a stock 5.3 setup getting low 6s. Absolute fastest I found was a 6.4, but with a negative DA (equivalent of being below sea level, due to low altitude and cold weather). Not sure what CnD did there, but they got much lower than average 0-60 than everyone else for the 5.3 and a tad slower than average for the 6.2 compared to other outlets. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
I stand corrected. Thanks for the link. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
I don't advertise. I decompile the binaries and read the hex to find things HPTuners or EFI live doesn't give you access to. Allows me to do custom things with the ECUs in certain applications. Most "tuners" don't have a firm understanding how a ECU works outside of modifying fuel models and spark. You'd be surprised the amount of crap tuners out there. Hard to believe what would slip by? The knock logic is not as simple as "OH MAN I SEE KNOCK, PULL TIMING". There are several tables in play that determine fuel quality. Yes, when knock is seen, the PCM reacts fast. There are several things that are taken into consideration while cruising. MAP, rpm, relative combustion volume on the microphone. It uses all these with table look ups to determine how much to shift the knock learn factor, which is a vector to determine how much to blend between the different spark values. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
It has changed a bit, yes. But the engine is basically the same. Only difference is DFM instead of AFM, which might close the gap between premium and regular even more in terms of gas mileage. That change was in 2019, so it's still applicable for 2014-2018 trucks, and probably not much different, considering the change between the two is quite minor. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Modern knock learn factors don't necessarily wait until knock is detected. Knock is not a clear cut ping always. Knock sensors are microphones. They can measure the relative combustion volume. They will detect when you're close to knocking well before you get to the audible pinging noise. I tune GM (and some import) vehicles. I've seen this repeatedly. Hell, even the GM Gen 3 PCMs don't need to see knock to realize they're on low octane. If they do see knock, they will adjust more quickly, but it doesn't require knock to realize it's close to the threshold. I can datalog my gen 5 truck and see when it knocks and see the knock learn factor. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
I posted a link in another thread (or maybe this one) where the 6.2 was tested by AAA with premium and regular. It showed that there was a very small power difference between the two and a ~7% fuel mileage difference. Yes, spark is pulled at part throttle and wot with 87. It doesn't mean anything though. Engine adjusts to run based on the fuel it has. If you run premium you get 1-2 more mpg. Cost of premium doesn't offset the mileage gain. They ran tests on 0% to 6% grades to simulate different loads on the engine. They determined that even though GM recommends premium, they suggest you're better off running regular unless you care about the insignificant power loss. The premium fuel requirement is debunked. It's a false argument. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Not what the data shows, bud. The 6.2 data doesn't have any max trailering package in it, just standard axle ratio. The 5.3 numbers are all over the place depending on trailering package? Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Yeah. You're projecting your BS all over this thread. You've now ignored the "the 6.2s do NOT require premium" comment 3x now. I guess you're too busy projecting how rich and frugal you are while talking down to everyone else to read. Thanks for your comment! Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Uhhhh comparing a 5.3 without tow package to 6.2 without tow package still puts the 6.2 ahead in tow capacity. No matter how you look at it, the additional 80ish ftlbs give any optioned 6.2 additional tow rating over a 5.3. I don't understand why you're trying to debate this? Hell comparing a 5.3 WITH the tow package is still behind a 6.2 without it (yes, they are very close or the same in this skewed case, which the 6.2 will likely get the same or better gas mileage due to rear gear at that point)... The 6.2 makes more torque everywhere, it makes sense it can tow more... Only combo I can find where the 5.3 tows more is a 5.3 max trailer package smaller truck vs a Denali 6.2 CC 4WD standard box Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Alright? It's an option. I don't understand what you're trying to say. I should compare a 5.3 with max trailering package to a 6.2 without max trailering package? Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
To answer this most simply, when compared in a GMC Sierra 5.3: 355hp/383tq Towing capacity: 9200 lbs 0-60: ~7.0 seconds 1/4: 14.9@92 6.2: 420hp/460tq Towing capacity: 12,200 0-60: 5.4 1/4 Mi: 13.9@100 Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
You appear to be one of those people that enjoys talking down to every option that isn't what you have. Nice. 1) a "chipped" 5.3 in 2018 alone gets you 385/413 HP/tq vs the stock 6.2 420/460 HP/tq. So that statement is wrong. Can you modify a 5.3 to make more power? Sure? But you can modify a 6.2 and make more power just as easily. Dumbest comment I've read on this forum... 2) while I don't particularly understand the Babymax option, some people prefer a diesel engine that gets better gas mileage and makes better low end torque. Why are you saying everyone who buys an AT4 or a 6.2 or a Babymax is an idiot and should've just bought a 5.3 and "chipped it". We get it, you've got small man syndrome for apparently every option or trim that's more expensive than yours, so everyone that spent more is "having to validate their purchase". It sounds more like you're trying to validate yours by talking down to everyone else and saying everyone else is stupid for buying the 6.2 or 3.0 or the at4. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
I would rinse it and then wring it out and let it air dry and then machine wash it Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk -
No defending it. It's simple facts. The 6.2 is a better performer and gets basically pretty good gas mileage. Premium is recommended, not required. You can and many people do put 87 in it. I test drove all engine combos. Babymax: made decent low end torque but lacked any real acceleration. 5.3: was ok but felt a bit anemic, and was slower than my 2500HD I was coming from. 6.2: made the most power and makes the same torque as the babymax, but 145 more HP. The "just throw a supercharger" argument is dumb IMO. I'm not looking to void the warranty on a brand new truck. I have a few modified vehicles (one is a track vette with a 416 CI LS3), so I'm not looking for a speed demon truck. I just want enough pep to pass people and pull my trailer to track events. In the end, the 6.2 was the fit for me. If I went to a 2500, is get a duramax but it was substantially more expensive, slower, and overkill for what I pull. Most 1500s today can pull what I need. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Yeah but blowing dirt and debris back onto your vehicle isn't ideal. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
93. I've not started my testing with 87 yet to determine mileage or power impact. I'm waiting to get past 3k miles. https://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Premium-Fuel-Phase-II-Research-Report-FINAL-2.pdf They test the 6.2 (2017 in an Escalade) and show there is a change in fuel economy. Interesting read. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
The 6.2 is undisputedly faster. It is the combo that has the highest towing capacity in the 1500s (more than the baby max). Gas mileage is pretty good at 65. I average 24-25 driving around DFW at 65/70. When driving between Houston and Dallas, I see 21.x doing +3 to the speed limit the entire way( 78 mph most of the way). If you romp on it, you'll see teens real quick. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
I had actually been looking for a better drying solution than using a million little towels. Thanks for the suggestion. I ordered 2 of these towels. Will give them a go on my next wash! Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Honestly the hardest part is just that I've never done it before for this truck and theres no instructions. I recorded some video clips and I'll make a DIY video for the upper part. Luckily the bumper removal is pretty well documented already. I'm just struggling getting my hands into some of these spots. Sun is going down and I started real late and didn't eat today so I'm going to call it a day. I need to do a little more research. Having done the front grill, I'm confident I could have it swapped out in about an hour if I had to do it again. It's just tedious Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Upper piece is installed. I've been trying for 45 minutes to remove the lower chrome piece without removing the bumper. I'm convinced it is not possible. This is frustrating that I have to pull the bumper for such a small piece
-
I did it. This was pretty difficult lol. Lots of difficult to reach clips from the back if yours doesn't just pop out. Passenger side came out easy. Driver side was a PITA. Every clip fought me.
-
Sadly it's POURING rain right now in DFW. Haven't been able to work on this at all... Mildly frustrating. Tomorrow looks like nicer weather. I do prefer the AT4 grill look to the Denali, but I do like how the Denali glossy black looks. Hopefully it fits well! Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
I haven't decided on the door handles either. Don't want black. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Forum Statistics
250.4k
Total Topics2.7m
Total Posts -
Member Statistics
342,748
Total Members8,960
Most Online
-
Who's Online 15 Members, 1 Anonymous, 2,074 Guests (See full list)