Is the 2007-2013 6.2 noticeably stronger than a new ecotec 5.3?

[chevyguy45]

If they are equipped the same?

[johnrunner89]

I had an 08 silverado z71 4x4 with the vmax 6liter in it and now have a 14' sierra z71 4x4 with Eco 5.3. Haven't noticed a difference on power but have the benefit of better gas mileage now.

[chevyguy45]

Yeah but the 5.3 is putting out similar numbers to the old 6.0. But is down 48hp from the old 6.2.

[kt88]

The truck I have now has an '07 5.3L dropped in as a replacement and my dad has an identical '14 5.3L. My personal opinion is that the '14 definitely has more pep. Whether you attribute that to the transmission or the engine can be arguable, but the '14 will go when you ask it to easier than the '07.

 

 

 

haha, I completely read the title of this wrong before i posted this. oops.

[galliher_nc]

To me? No. I had a '07 Yukon Denali with the 6.2 and I've driven numerous K2XX Silverado's with the 4.3, the 5.3 and of course my own personal 6.2. Granted that's not a fair comparison either because the YD is a much heavier vehicle and I believe the 6.2 in those early Denali's was rated at only 380 or so HP. Keep in mind, I owned that Yukon 5 years ago, so my memory is somewhat foggy too.

[bboyce536]

I had a 2011 Silverado Ext. cab with the 6.2 and 3.73 gears before my current 2014 5.3.

 

In sheer acceleration, no, not much difference, but in terms of drivability, yes there is a difference. Is it monumental? No, but it is enough to notice.

 

The 6.2 has more torque down low and in the driving range, really chugged up hills well and in my opinion was a better driving motor for the enthusiast who pays attention to what the truck is doing. I'm the type of guy who does not like a truck that gear hunts on hills and has to downshift for the slightest of throttle inputs.

 

Now let me say that the K2XX trucks have improved in the trans department over the previous gen in terms of holding gears, but not in enjoyment. Let me explain. Before my 6.2, I had a GMT800 with the 5.3 and 3.42 gears (similar to current gens 3.08) and that truck gear hunted all the time, granted it was a dog all around, but after 4 years with that I didn't want another 5.3 and HAD to have the 6.2. Not a fair comparison, I know, but when GM adapted the 6 speed to the 900 trucks, IMO they shifted far more and gear hunted more then my old 5.3 4 speed. No bueno...

 

I had lifted my 6.2 on big tires and was sick of the mileage so I bought a 14 5.3 after driving one...the new motor is a big improvement over the previous ones. Trans will actually hold a gear decently and for the most part is better to drive, except how damn over eager they are to upshift. This is where you will notice the biggest difference, the trans wants to upshift so quickly and there are a LOT of times due to the 5.3s lack of torque is has to downshift a gear or two right after it just upshifted to get moving. It is frustrating and the reason I am going to tune my 5.3.

 

Let me know if this makes sense to you... For what its worth, I average around 4mpg better with the 5.3 and don't have to run the expensive stuff.

 

 

Long story short, I miss my 6.2..

[chevyguy45]

It makes sense. The torque of the 6.2 still hauls the truck around better.

[KARNUT]

When I went in to buy my truck in Dec. I went to buy a left over 13 with a 6.2. I lean toward performance first, couldn't feel any differents. So I saved a ton of money and bought a 14 Texas package. When you run the 14, 5.3 on corn it the same hp as the old 6.2 or very close.

[CAtaylor]

Equipped the same i cant say exactly. I traded a 13 6.2l 3.73 in on my current truck 14 5.3l 3.42. Stock to stock not much difference at all. The 13 6.2 did have the edge in the lower rpm's while towing; I attributed this to the gearing difference. 13 6.2l with a good tune was all around noticeably better than the 14. My 14 is now tuned with 4.56 gears and the 13 6.2 would not hold a candle to this one towing now, even with the 6" lift and 35" tires currently installed.

[RyanbabZ71]

To me? No. I had a '07 Yukon Denali with the 6.2 and I've driven numerous K2XX Silverado's with the 4.3, the 5.3 and of course my own personal 6.2. Granted that's not a fair comparison either because the YD is a much heavier vehicle and I believe the 6.2 in those early Denali's was rated at only 380 or so HP. Keep in mind, I owned that Yukon 5 years ago, so my memory is somewhat foggy too.

The GM SUVs have a different 6.2 engines than the trucks do. The trucks didn't have AFM. L9H is the truck engine code

 

 

Ryan

[ChrisNJ]

IMO, the '14 5.3 can be compared to the old 6.2, mostly because the old 6.2 was strangled by horrible shift points to get better mpg. The new 5.3 is great, and the shifting is finally good. Now this is for normal driving. Wake up the old 6.2 at high rpms, and it will outperform the new 5.3.

The new 6.2 is much better than the old one, mostly IMO, because they've allowed the trans to shift normally as we would expect a trans to operate. Love it. And love the new 5.3 too.

[galliher_nc]

The GM SUVs have a different 6.2 engines than the trucks do. The trucks didn't have AFM. L9H is the truck engine code

 

 

Ryan

My Denali was an L92, didn't have AFM. Denali was rated at 380 horse 415 torque for '07.

[Big6.2Dan]

Take it as you will...and this will be shorter than my original because I wasn't logged in the first time I tried to post and the site didnt keep what was posted....but here we go.

I have an apples to apples comparison from the old 6.2 into the new 5.3. I owed a 2011 6.2 NHT Extended Cab 4x4 LT with 17's, I now own a 2014 5.3 NHT Extended Cab 4x4 LTZ on 18's. I bought the new truck thinking that stock for stock it felt about the same as the old 6.2 ( now to be honest in this review....I had the 6.2 for 3 years and 60k miles...In that time it acquired an Airaid CAI, ARH headers, Tune by Justin at BBP, a fully built SC 6L80E transmission, 2 piece steel drive-shaft for the rear, full locker for both ends, 285 70 17's on 0 offset wheels, a 416 kit which included crank, rods ,block machine work, new oil pump, and oil pan, It also had 11.5:1 Wiseco custom Pistons, comp level 3 cam, high lift springs, head machine work, and I'm sure a bunch of other stuff I have forgotten about, It was over 600 Lb-Ft, and HP at the wheels on a mustang dyno, and going from that to the new 5.3 may have skewed my recollection on the 6.2 as it was stock) Well.....I was wrong in thinking it was about the same.

On the same hill, pulling the same trailer with the same weight in the truck and trailer, the old 6.2 would pull the hill in 6th gear, at 60 mph at 30% throttle input ( from the efi live tell tale) without being in tow/haul mode. The new 5.3 has trouble with the same load, trailer and weight in the truck to get to 55 mph at 100% throttle input ( as viewed from the efi live telltale) with tow haul on. The trailer and load is under 7k pounds, and the rated capacity of both trucks is much, much higher than that.

With that said, the 6.2 stock was much better handling around town. Less throttle needed to drive in town, and start from a stop sign or light, you could get out of the way of a car that you may have not seen when you were pulling out, things of that nature. The 5.3 is okay....but it just doesn't have the "getting out of Dodge" feel that the 6.2 had.

 

After now having the 5.3......well....two of them (I have also had a '14 that was exactly like the one I have now without the NHT pack, and 3.42 gears) I absolutely miss my 6.2 and would buy another one of the old ones again in a heart beat. The nanny's on the new trucks absolutely kill them , in a having truck fun sense of speak. Now getting 25 MPG on the highway kinda makes you not worry about the Nanny's part....but it's still just not the same. Now whether or not a tune would fix the new truck or not, I'm not sure...But I know That even with the first tune from Justin that 6.2 was an absolute animal. The new 5.3 wouldn't hold a candle to that 6.2 with just a tune!