5.3 vs 6.2 mpg

[Isriam]

Well Ill answer that, when I got mine the Texas package out the door was 31K loaded pretty good. The 5.3 on corn is 380 HP. The left over Denali I was looking at was 15K more. AS loaded as the Texas package is its hard to justify for the differents in HP. That with supercharging in mind is a fifty HP differents, according to the web sites between the two and is paid for by buying the 5.3 and then some. If it was just a 2500$ upgrade on the Texas package I would have bought it.

 

texas package is a great deal but not many people can get it.

[darkfox1]

Yea.. ya know I noticed that too. The 6.2 has WAAAAYYYY better performance in every possible way over the 5.3. cruising, accelerating, towing, and only a tiny hit in fuel economy. Whats more the 5.3s coming with 3.08 gears are a SLUG off the line, and get 1-2 mpg better than a 6.2 truck that can easily overtake most cars from a stop, and with moderate 3.42 gears to boot. You put 3.73s in that thing and it'd be a 14mpg BEAST. (vs a 16mpg monster.)

 

I REALLY wanted a 6.2 but GM refuses to put it in anything except their highest priced trucks, so I had to settle for the 5.3.

 

I will always feel dejected because of this. I dont like to mod my vehicles, but today I tried to pass a LAWN CARE TRUCK and couldn't do it.. I had to back off.. I've never understood how GM can put the 6.2 in a camaro, but only a 5.3 in a big 4wd truck.

 

My average 5.3 fuel econ is about 18.7, but this is accelerating less than 2k rpm per takeoff. Most morning commuters tailgate me, pass me, flip me off for accelerating too slow. I have to accelerate ~3k rpm 1st-3rd to get up to speed to "keep up" with the morning commute. I'm lucky I don't do that every day. If I did I'd be getting 14-16mpg and still have no power.

[KARNUT]

Yea.. ya know I noticed that too. The 6.2 has WAAAAYYYY better performance in every possible way over the 5.3. cruising, accelerating, towing, and only a tiny hit in fuel economy. Whats more the 5.3s coming with 3.08 gears are a SLUG off the line, and get 1-2 mpg better than a 6.2 truck that can easily overtake most cars from a stop, and with moderate 3.42 gears to boot. You put 3.73s in that thing and it'd be a 14mpg BEAST. (vs a 16mpg monster.)

 

I REALLY wanted a 6.2 but GM refuses to put it in anything except their highest priced trucks, so I had to settle for the 5.3.

 

I will always feel dejected because of this. I dont like to mod my vehicles, but today I tried to pass a LAWN CARE TRUCK and couldn't do it.. I had to back off.. I've never understood how GM can put the 6.2 in a camaro, but only a 5.3 in a big 4wd truck.

 

My average 5.3 fuel econ is about 18.7, but this is accelerating less than 2k rpm per takeoff. Most morning commuters tailgate me, pass me, flip me off for accelerating too slow. I have to accelerate ~3k rpm 1st-3rd to get up to speed to "keep up" with the morning commute. I'm lucky I don't do that every day. If I did I'd be getting 14-16mpg and still have no power.

There is something seriously wrong with you or your truck. On E85 your within 40HP of the 6.2, low 15s in 1/4 mile 0-60 in the 6 second range and that's being conservative. That's muscle car territory a few years ago. The 6.2 is a great engine, with a few mods the 5.3 can deal with it and save money too. Get real and stop bashing a great motor. Its not waaaaaaaaaay better.

[darkfox1]

I've driven both, I test drove 3 6.2s,2 of which was on the interstate for more than 5 miles. I've driven probably 1000 miles on my current 5.3, plus 3 or 4 test drives of other 5.3s I didn't buy.

 

It's probably me.. but I don't see how. The 5.3 has to work very hard to pass on the interstate (I'm talking sustained 2-3k rpm for a minute or so) and often has trouble keeping up with traffic during rush hour. (rush hour here is a good bit different from normal driving. For NORMAL driving, like weekends and around town it does just fine and keeps up for the most part, but rush hour I have a hard time keeping up.) If I set cruise on 72, the most it can maintain up a hill is 69, that's downshifted ~2100 rpm and staying there while climbing the hill.

 

Out this way we're in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains, so we have some pretty good hills. Not what most would call "mountains" though.

 

The 5.3 is an oddball motor. You can stomp it and the truck will stand up and burn rubber, but if you ease into the pedal it wont budge an inch for ~20% of the movement. The 6.2 jumps off the line and stays there, effortlessly.

 

Believe me, the day I bought my '14 I had 3 '13 denalis lined up to look at in other parts of the state that all had the gen IV 6.2s. I was fighting GM hard on this, but.. the '14 was more attractive because AWD denalis get like 10-12mpg and I knew that'd be a big hit on my wallet. I sat and argued with a salesman at John thornton in lithia springs about getting a 6.2 in an LT and they kept saying they couldn't do it. I went to 5 other dealers asking the same thing and test driving trucks in crew, single, x cab configurations with 5.3s, and 3 high country 6.2s. (2 of which were that nice metallic brown, but both were $56-58k, about $20k out of range.)

 

I bought the truck with the 5.3 knowing full well that it would frustrate me. Doesn't mean anything really, lie in the bed you make ya know? but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

My money is on the 6.2 all the way. If you can afford it, get it.

[KARNUT]

I've driven both, I test drove 3 6.2s,2 of which was on the interstate for more than 5 miles. I've driven probably 1000 miles on my current 5.3, plus 3 or 4 test drives of other 5.3s I didn't buy.

 

It's probably me.. but I don't see how. The 5.3 has to work very hard to pass on the interstate (I'm talking sustained 2-3k rpm for a minute or so) and often has trouble keeping up with traffic during rush hour. (rush hour here is a good bit different from normal driving. For NORMAL driving, like weekends and around town it does just fine and keeps up for the most part, but rush hour I have a hard time keeping up.) If I set cruise on 72, the most it can maintain up a hill is 69, that's downshifted ~2100 rpm and staying there while climbing the hill.

 

Out this way we're in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains, so we have some pretty good hills. Not what most would call "mountains" though.

 

The 5.3 is an oddball motor. You can stomp it and the truck will stand up and burn rubber, but if you ease into the pedal it wont budge an inch for ~20% of the movement. The 6.2 jumps off the line and stays there, effortlessly.

 

Believe me, the day I bought my '14 I had 3 '13 denalis lined up to look at in other parts of the state that all had the gen IV 6.2s. I was fighting GM hard on this, but.. the '14 was more attractive because AWD denalis get like 10-12mpg and I knew that'd be a big hit on my wallet. I sat and argued with a salesman at John thornton in lithia springs about getting a 6.2 in an LT and they kept saying they couldn't do it. I went to 5 other dealers asking the same thing and test driving trucks in crew, single, x cab configurations with 5.3s, and 3 high country 6.2s. (2 of which were that nice metallic brown, but both were $56-58k, about $20k out of range.)

 

I bought the truck with the 5.3 knowing full well that it would frustrate me. Doesn't mean anything really, lie in the bed you make ya know? but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

My money is on the 6.2 all the way. If you can afford it, get it.

Could be your truck, when I went to buy I was going for a left over Denali 13 model they were discounted. Then I drove the Texas package 5.3 with the 342 gear. On E85 with a can tune it runs really good. My DD before that was a stroked super charge chevy truck I still have. I don't miss a thing power wise with the 5.3. The extra 15K I saved let me justify keeping my old truck.

[Tqjunkie]

Yea.. ya know I noticed that too. The 6.2 has WAAAAYYYY better performance in every possible way over the 5.3. cruising, accelerating, towing, and only a tiny hit in fuel economy. Whats more the 5.3s coming with 3.08 gears are a SLUG off the line, and get 1-2 mpg better than a 6.2 truck that can easily overtake most cars from a stop, and with moderate 3.42 gears to boot. You put 3.73s in that thing and it'd be a 14mpg BEAST. (vs a 16mpg monster.)

 

I REALLY wanted a 6.2 but GM refuses to put it in anything except their highest priced trucks, so I had to settle for the 5.3.

 

I will always feel dejected because of this. I dont like to mod my vehicles, but today I tried to pass a LAWN CARE TRUCK and couldn't do it.. I had to back off.. I've never understood how GM can put the 6.2 in a camaro, but only a 5.3 in a big 4wd truck.

 

My average 5.3 fuel econ is about 18.7, but this is accelerating less than 2k rpm per takeoff. Most morning commuters tailgate me, pass me, flip me off for accelerating too slow. I have to accelerate ~3k rpm 1st-3rd to get up to speed to "keep up" with the morning commute. I'm lucky I don't do that every day. If I did I'd be getting 14-16mpg and still have no power.

 

what gears do you have in your truck?

[steveR]

To the o/p.

You would think there is a download in the computer that would give you the read out of time or mileage in 4/6/8. That would be the only way to compare the two engines....5.3 and 6.2.

But one would think that the more powerful motor would hold more time in v4 mode? My thoughts.

[darkfox1]

I have 3.08 which AFAIK is fairly standard on the 5.3s. (If you know the rpo code I'll be happy to confirm.) From my understanding most 5.3s come with 3.08, most 6.2s 3.42. Folks on here talk about 3.73s on a 5.3 having good performance and that's fine n all, but if we're talking stock to stock, the 6.2 gets ~16-18 mpg city and the 5.3 gets 17-20 city (from what I've been seeing around here and in my own experience) with those rearends.

 

My thought is... you put 3.73s in a 5.3, (and I have no data to confirm this) you're still gonna be down on towing and on acceleration vs a 6.2, but you'll be getting 6.2 fuel economy. Plus your factory warranty is gone, AND you're out a few thousand $$s for gears and possibly labor to put em in if you're 4wd.

[KARNUT]

You just have 6.2 envy, save your money and get one or a super charger, that would be cheaper. There isn't really that much differents depending on how you configure your truck. If you got the max tow 5.3 on E85, and the 6.2 with the 342 gear performance would be real close.

[newdude]

i am no mechanic but with the 6.2 having more hp/trq, would it not hold four cylinders better

than the 5.3 with both trucks being equal

 

mike

 

The 6.2 becomes a 3.1 liter 4 cylinder. So, in theory it should 4 cylinder mode more and longer than the 5.3.

[thefishhawk]

It must be your gearing, (or I agree there is something wrong with your truck) I'm not sure how 2-3k rpms is working hard but ok. I have the 3.42 5.3 and being in Colorado we have plenty of mountains. Your description doesn't sound like my truck at all, no problem keeping up with anyone, blowing people off the line, or towing trailers over mountain passes. I'm sure the 6.2 is fun but overkill for most things, I probably only would have considered it if I had a big travel trailer. All tradeoffs I suppose, I went for a little better mpg's. Heck, I came from a 10 year old 5.3 and this one is effortless compared to that going over the big hills. Too bad you couldn't have found one with the 342s, I think you would have been a lot happier.

[Vanished]

My 6.2l is averaging 16mpg over first 1000 miles with a high of 25 mpg for 50 mile rolling average and 20.1 over last 400 miles (mostly hwy)... 3:42 gears...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kent2500]

+1... using people's mileages in the forums is kind of useless unless they are located in the same region as you with same conditions and truck model. I live in Florida and CT during the year... just got back from my first stay in FL with the truck and was literally averaging 4 MPG more down there compared to the hilly stop & go conditions up here in CT.

 

Plus Summer vs Winter blends, the true amount of ethanol during a fill up, quality of the roads driven on and of course the elevation variation (as you pointed out) of a drive.

[Ventilator]

Yea.. ya know I noticed that too. The 6.2 has WAAAAYYYY better performance in every possible way over the 5.3. cruising, accelerating, towing, and only a tiny hit in fuel economy. Whats more the 5.3s coming with 3.08 gears are a SLUG off the line, and get 1-2 mpg better than a 6.2 truck that can easily overtake most cars from a stop, and with moderate 3.42 gears to boot. You put 3.73s in that thing and it'd be a 14mpg BEAST. (vs a 16mpg monster.)

 

I REALLY wanted a 6.2 but GM refuses to put it in anything except their highest priced trucks, so I had to settle for the 5.3.

 

I will always feel dejected because of this. I dont like to mod my vehicles, but today I tried to pass a LAWN CARE TRUCK and couldn't do it.. I had to back off.. I've never understood how GM can put the 6.2 in a camaro, but only a 5.3 in a big 4wd truck.

 

My average 5.3 fuel econ is about 18.7, but this is accelerating less than 2k rpm per takeoff. Most morning commuters tailgate me, pass me, flip me off for accelerating too slow. I have to accelerate ~3k rpm 1st-3rd to get up to speed to "keep up" with the morning commute. I'm lucky I don't do that every day. If I did I'd be getting 14-16mpg and still have no power.

 

 

I've driven both, I test drove 3 6.2s,2 of which was on the interstate for more than 5 miles. I've driven probably 1000 miles on my current 5.3, plus 3 or 4 test drives of other 5.3s I didn't buy.

 

It's probably me.. but I don't see how. The 5.3 has to work very hard to pass on the interstate (I'm talking sustained 2-3k rpm for a minute or so) and often has trouble keeping up with traffic during rush hour. (rush hour here is a good bit different from normal driving. For NORMAL driving, like weekends and around town it does just fine and keeps up for the most part, but rush hour I have a hard time keeping up.) If I set cruise on 72, the most it can maintain up a hill is 69, that's downshifted ~2100 rpm and staying there while climbing the hill.

 

Out this way we're in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains, so we have some pretty good hills. Not what most would call "mountains" though.

 

The 5.3 is an oddball motor. You can stomp it and the truck will stand up and burn rubber, but if you ease into the pedal it wont budge an inch for ~20% of the movement. The 6.2 jumps off the line and stays there, effortlessly.

 

Believe me, the day I bought my '14 I had 3 '13 denalis lined up to look at in other parts of the state that all had the gen IV 6.2s. I was fighting GM hard on this, but.. the '14 was more attractive because AWD denalis get like 10-12mpg and I knew that'd be a big hit on my wallet. I sat and argued with a salesman at John thornton in lithia springs about getting a 6.2 in an LT and they kept saying they couldn't do it. I went to 5 other dealers asking the same thing and test driving trucks in crew, single, x cab configurations with 5.3s, and 3 high country 6.2s. (2 of which were that nice metallic brown, but both were $56-58k, about $20k out of range.)

 

I bought the truck with the 5.3 knowing full well that it would frustrate me. Doesn't mean anything really, lie in the bed you make ya know? but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

My money is on the 6.2 all the way. If you can afford it, get it.

 

 

I have 3.08 which AFAIK is fairly standard on the 5.3s. (If you know the rpo code I'll be happy to confirm.) From my understanding most 5.3s come with 3.08, most 6.2s 3.42. Folks on here talk about 3.73s on a 5.3 having good performance and that's fine n all, but if we're talking stock to stock, the 6.2 gets ~16-18 mpg city and the 5.3 gets 17-20 city (from what I've been seeing around here and in my own experience) with those rearends.

 

My thought is... you put 3.73s in a 5.3, (and I have no data to confirm this) you're still gonna be down on towing and on acceleration vs a 6.2, but you'll be getting 6.2 fuel economy. Plus your factory warranty is gone, AND you're out a few thousand $$s for gears and possibly labor to put em in if you're 4wd.

 

 

WOW! I think your truck need a set of these? My 5.3 has balls, and gets great gas mileage. Your probably all carboned up?

Give your truck some balls!

 

 

The GMC SLE has 3.42 standard, SLT 3.08 standard. Pretty sure the Chevy's have 3.08 standard, but all the 5.3's can get 3.42's as a free option.

[glcbn]

WOW! I think your truck need a set of these? My 5.3 has balls, and gets great gas mileage. Your probably all carboned up?

Give your truck some balls!

 

 

The GMC SLE has 3.42 standard, SLT 3.08 standard. Pretty sure the Chevy's have 3.08 standard, but all the 5.3's can get 3.42's as a free option.

 

Ventilator,I'm with you on this and scratching my head. The 5.3 definitely has balls!