Jump to content

5.3 or 6.2 - Do you wish you would have gotten the other engine?

14DENALI

By 14DENALI
in Engines & Drivetrain

Recommended Posts

14DENALI Enthusiast

14DENALI

Posted
Posted

I'm in the market for a 14 Denali. I want a 6.2. They are hard to get around me. I can order, but have considered just getting a 5.3. Anyone out there get either engine and wish they would have gotten the other for one reason or another?

 

Thanks in advance for you comments.

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply
nando87 Enthusiast

nando87

Posted
Posted

I wish I would have gotten the 6.2 instead of the 5.3, I came from an 07 V-Max w/ NHT package. When I was buying my truck I looked at the power ratings and the 5.3 and my 6.0 were pretty close so I figured I didn't need the 6.2 for towing my trailer.

 

After a couple of trips out, I now wish I had gotten the 6.2. My old 6.0 pulled much harder than the new 5.3, BUT the 5.3 does get pretty good MGP even when towing.

Silverado-Hareek Senior Enthusiast

Silverado-Hareek

Posted
Posted

If you tow a lot I would say to definitely get the 6.2. But if you're like me and you mostly commute with your truck and do the occasional haul or tow for some weekend housework, the 5.3 is more than capable. I have no regrets there.

Silverado-Hareek Senior Enthusiast

Silverado-Hareek

Posted
Posted

I guess I should add that the axle ratio should be a minimum of 3.42 as well. I have the 5.3L and 3.42 ratio combo on my rig which means I can tow 9600lbs. I personally would never get the smaller V6 engine or the lower 3.08 axle ratio on a full size truck ever. That will only tow about 6500 lbs. At that point the truck really has no more power or towing capacity than a V6 Tacoma so you're paying for the size of the truck but the power isn't there.

Newm Enthusiast

Newm

Posted
Posted

IMO....get the 6.2. I am averaging 18.2 MPG for the first 2K miles and can't wipe the smile off my face when I drive this thing. The truck has two personalities really. If you want to take it easy and hypermile it you can get great MPG for a big truck, or if you want to just have a little fun with the loud pedal it will make you grin like your 16 again in dads truck. If you do any kind of towing these trucks shine even more. The only downside to the 6.2 is the 10-15% more it costs you to run premium....well that and the $2K buy in price. I knew I wanted the 6.2 and just ordered it because I knew if I didn't I would always "want" what I knew I should have bought in the first place. Do it right the first time :driving:

DanMan_S Enthusiast

DanMan_S

Posted
Posted

While I don't have one of the new trucks, currently owning both 5.3L and 6.2L Silverado's gives me a good idea of their previous relative performance. And there is no comparison...my crew cab 6.2L will eat my regular cab 5.3L for lunch. Both trucks are running headers, exhausts and are tuned. I assume the relative performance on the new engines is similar.

 

I don't tow anything with my crew cab and just use it as a big daily driver. I definitely don't need the 6.2L, but I love having the tire smoking power available and nothing is as addictive as being able to crack the tires loose on an upshift or from a roll.

 

Keep in mind that the 6.2L would give you higher resale, so it would help you get the money back, especially on a truck such as the Denali. If I was buying the Denali and spending that kind of money, I wouldn't even consider an engine other than the 6.2L.

gmissed Enthusiast

gmissed

Posted
Posted

I have the 5.3 and am completely happy with it. I don’t need the extra horses that come with a 6.2 and have no desire mash the peddle for giggles. The smaller V8 will get me to my destination just as quickly as the larger one would. If you need the extra HP then it’s a must or if you just need the thrill of a big V8 and just don’t care about the extra $ for the engine and don’t mind paying extra for premium gas then go for it. A simple decision really.

spectaculous Enthusiast

spectaculous

Posted
Posted

The 5.3 is perfectly adequate for everything I have needed so far. I don't plan on towing much in the future and it moves plenty fast enough when I ask it to.

dobdabomb Enthusiast

dobdabomb

Posted
Posted

While I don't have one of the new trucks, currently owning both 5.3L and 6.2L Silverado's gives me a good idea of their previous relative performance. And there is no comparison...my crew cab 6.2L will eat my regular cab 5.3L for lunch. Both trucks are running headers, exhausts and are tuned. I assume the relative performance on the new engines is similar.

 

I don't tow anything with my crew cab and just use it as a big daily driver. I definitely don't need the 6.2L, but I love having the tire smoking power available and nothing is as addictive as being able to crack the tires loose on an upshift or from a roll.

 

Keep in mind that the 6.2L would give you higher resale, so it would help you get the money back, especially on a truck such as the Denali. If I was buying the Denali and spending that kind of money, I wouldn't even consider an engine other than the 6.2L.

 

Thats what I did and my line of thinking.

bass mechanic Enthusiast

bass mechanic

Posted
Posted

when I bought my 2014 AT 6.2 I knew nothing about GM trucks, I had a Tacoma with a SC. I sort of stumbled across it online and was also looking at ford and dodge.

but as a car buyer I generally look for the biggest engine because I like power!

it wasn't until I started looking for a blacked out truck that led me to the all terrain and it wasn't until I found out how rare the 6.2 was to find.

fortunately I found my 6.2 on the lot equipped exactly how I would have ordered it!

I had to drive 60 miles to a different dealer because my local dealer had the same truck but with a 5.3 I never even drove a 5.3! but based on what ive heard and seen I don't think I would have needed to.

I feel sorry for the folks that got the 5.3.

granted, a lot of you live below 2000 elevation. but up here at 6500 feet we loose about 25% of the power and nothing but the biggest engines will do whether you daily drive or haul anything. I love the power and the sound of the 6.2 and I have no regrets!

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

The SLE Texas package that I got didn't offer the 6.2 for the 2000 dollar upgrade and the truck was loaded. I paid 31000 and change out the door. To get in the SLT with a 6.2 would have cost 7 to 10K more. I found out that the 5.3 on e85 gives you 380 hp so with just a few mods the 5.3 could give the 6.2 a run for less money.

diannabill Enthusiast

diannabill

Posted
Posted

when I bought my 2014 AT 6.2 I knew nothing about GM trucks, I had a Tacoma with a SC. I sort of stumbled across it online and was also looking at ford and dodge.

but as a car buyer I generally look for the biggest engine because I like power!

it wasn't until I started looking for a blacked out truck that led me to the all terrain and it wasn't until I found out how rare the 6.2 was to find.

fortunately I found my 6.2 on the lot equipped exactly how I would have ordered it!

I had to drive 60 miles to a different dealer because my local dealer had the same truck but with a 5.3 I never even drove a 5.3! but based on what ive heard and seen I don't think I would have needed to.

I feel sorry for the folks that got the 5.3.

granted, a lot of you live below 2000 elevation. but up here at 6500 feet we loose about 25% of the power and nothing but the biggest engines will do whether you daily drive or haul anything. I love the power and the sound of the 6.2 and I have no regrets!

Don't feel sorry for me! I have the 5.3 and love it.

fondupot Senior Enthusiast

fondupot

Posted
Posted

I have the 5.3 with 3.42 gears. I think this truck has adequate power and acceleration. Compared to my 2011 F150 5.0L and 3.73 gears, it performs very similarly only it gets 2-3 mpg better around town and 3-4mpg better on the highway.

 

I've driven the 4.3 with 3.42 gears and a 5.3 with 3.08 gears as well. The 5.3 with 3.08 gears is sluggish. The 4.3 with 3.42 is not bad.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined

  • Who's Online   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,260 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...