Jump to content

Should/Will GM up the HP on the 5.3 in 2016 ?

f8l vnm

Recommended Posts

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

Yeah this is interesting. I'll keep that in mind. I mean I originally planned on driving this thing for 7-10 years so we'll see. I may change my tune though if problems start popping up.

 

 

 

If I had a lifetime warranty I definitely wouldn't have done the catch can. I didn't even know a warranty like that was available!

 

 

I hear what you're saying about the warranty. That's why I kept the stock PCV line so I can return it to stock if I need to. I disagree with your last statement though. It may not be THAT serious but the reason it really doesn't come stock is because it's not THAT serious DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD. GM, and all manufacturers really, have designed everything to get them through the powertrain warranty on average. They have no incentive to make it last longer than that as they lose out on profit on the initial sale to protect it during a time where they don't have to cover the repairs anyway. They also require draining which the average driver isn't interested in checking these things and monitoring how full the can gets at different times of the year. Customers on average have a "set it and forget it" mentality. They do their oil changes every 7,500 miles per the manual and anything else is a huge inconvenience that may drive them to another manufacturer. Only the enthusiasts are interested in learning about these things and making the extra effort to check them.

Car pro is a radio program on Saturday in Houston, they throw in with dealers give discounts free lifetime car washes etc, pretty cool got it with the wifes car and my truck.
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
nards444 Senior Enthusiast

nards444

Posted
Posted

 

Yeah this is interesting. I'll keep that in mind. I mean I originally planned on driving this thing for 7-10 years so we'll see. I may change my tune though if problems start popping up.

 

 

 

If I had a lifetime warranty I definitely wouldn't have done the catch can. I didn't even know a warranty like that was available!

 

 

I hear what you're saying about the warranty. That's why I kept the stock PCV line so I can return it to stock if I need to. I disagree with your last statement though. It may not be THAT serious but the reason it really doesn't come stock is because it's not THAT serious DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD. GM, and all manufacturers really, have designed everything to get them through the powertrain warranty on average. They have no incentive to make it last longer than that as they lose out on profit on the initial sale to protect it during a time where they don't have to cover the repairs anyway. They also require draining which the average driver isn't interested in checking these things and monitoring how full the can gets at different times of the year. Customers on average have a "set it and forget it" mentality. They do their oil changes every 7,500 miles per the manual and anything else is a huge inconvenience that may drive them to another manufacturer. Only the enthusiasts are interested in learning about these things and making the extra effort to check them.

Like I said I see the merits. But for 1 how many vehicles do you really see blowing up past warranty. And cant say Ive heard anybody that did have issues come back from a mechanic that told them only if you had a catch can.

 

Again as cheap as the part is, usually less than 50 bucks, specially how cheap a big manufacture could get it for like GM, if it was that important it would come with it.

BlackZ71Silverado Senior Enthusiast

BlackZ71Silverado

Posted
Posted

doesnt really matter if you ask me, they are right there with Fords 5.0 and ecoboost, and just shy of the hemi. Considering its a truck they would much better off offering more torque if anything. Adding 20hp at the end of the day will do nothing.

 

 

The ONLY thing the GM trucks are missing is that fake exhaust sound made through the use of speakers. Ford should be embarrassed about what they have to do to make their vehicles sound strong. I know they have been doing it with the Mustang for a few years, but this is ridiculous!

haider320 Enthusiast

haider320

Posted
Posted

It's 385 HP with E85 fuel? I thought you get the max 325 HP with E85. Either way it sucks because there is no E85 in my area so I don't really have a choice.

 

But for me, the stock 5.3 is plenty of power for me. For what I do with a truck a 1500 is overkill anyway. I basically only have it because of the interior room and it's not much more cost-wise than a mid-size. I'm seriously considering downsizing in a few years to the Colorado with 2.8L Duramax though. I'm salivating over that small block diesel engine. I really wish they'd come out with one for the Silverado/Sierra then I wouldn't even consider downsizing!

 

Our trucks have 355hp (crank) from the factory, not 325. Yes, you get 385 hp just by using E85. With E85, you're probably putting down 325rwhp. With regular gas and 355hp, you are probably putting down 295rwhp. I don't know the exact precentage of powertrain loss.

WendysOrBust Enthusiast

WendysOrBust

Posted
Posted

 

 

The ONLY thing the GM trucks are missing is that fake exhaust sound made through the use of speakers. Ford should be embarrassed about what they have to do to make their vehicles sound strong. I know they have been doing it with the Mustang for a few years, but this is ridiculous!

This whole engine noise being ran through the speakers is being blow out of proportion. Its just sound, its not like they are inflating horsepower or other statistics. While I don't like it myself it would not deter me from buying a new F150.

Silverado-Hareek Senior Enthusiast

Silverado-Hareek

Posted
Posted

Like I said I see the merits. But for 1 how many vehicles do you really see blowing up past warranty. And cant say Ive heard anybody that did have issues come back from a mechanic that told them only if you had a catch can.

 

Again as cheap as the part is, usually less than 50 bucks, specially how cheap a big manufacture could get it for like GM, if it was that important it would come with it.

 

A decent catch can is not going to be less than $50. Most of the good ones are $200 so I'd argue if GM gets into a bid war with companies and gets a bulk rate discount, they can cut that in half easily. But for argument's sake, let's say it's a $50 part. Chevrolet alone sold roughly 4.8 million vehicles globally in 2014. Assuming every vehicle is a direct injection engine, which most are, $50 x 4.8 million vehicles is $240 million dollars they didn't spend in manufacturing for a part that wouldn't help them during the warranty period anyway. Let's say I'm making generous assumptions here and cut that in half which is way too much of a cut, it's still $120M. Take into consideration most customers trade up before 100k miles anyway and soccer moms don't want to bother with draining a catch can every couple of months.....I can easily see why a corporation would skip out on this part to line their pockets. After all it isn't preventing a major problem early on in the vehicle life. I dunno I understand the "read the manual" and the "if it was necessary they would include it" arguments and I generally agree with them. But I don't follow them blindly either. I'm not insulting you with that last statement, I'm just saying I'm a skeptic and prefer not to just listen to the manufacturer sometimes. Sometimes they're just greedy @$$ holes.

 

 

Our trucks have 355hp (crank) from the factory, not 325. Yes, you get 385 hp just by using E85. With E85, you're probably putting down 325rwhp. With regular gas and 355hp, you are probably putting down 295rwhp. I don't know the exact precentage of powertrain loss.

 

Yes you're right I'm not sure where I got 325 from. My apologies.

Jon A Senior Enthusiast

Jon A

Posted
Posted

The reason they don't put a catch can on from the factory is that most owners who don't change (or even bother to check) their oil would never empty it. Catch cans are great...but if it's full and you drive that way you're going to have problems.

BigBadSierra Senior Enthusiast

BigBadSierra

Posted
Posted

I thought people were loosing it talking about Ford pumping engine noise over the speakers.

 

Only to find out it was true UGGGG.

 

On topic though I suspect the HP to remain the same and suspect they will figure out how to improve the millage even more.

 

I get a kick out of GM matching the competitions fuel millage while sticking to the V8 format.

 

I will say though these V8 will out live the "Turbo's" in those other engines. SO hope people who keep their vehicles for a long time to expect to do at least one turbo rebuild.

f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The speaker noise is whatever. Drove around a crew cab 2.7 this weekend and it actually sounds like a v8. Lol. But I'm not a big fan of it. But who cares about that ?

Let's stick to topic of the 5.3 and if you think there will be or needs to be a boost in hp or tq

WendysOrBust Enthusiast

WendysOrBust

Posted
Posted

I thought people were loosing it talking about Ford pumping engine noise over the speakers.

 

Only to find out it was true UGGGG.

 

On topic though I suspect the HP to remain the same and suspect they will figure out how to improve the millage even more.

 

I get a kick out of GM matching the competitions fuel millage while sticking to the V8 format.

 

I will say though these V8 will out live the "Turbo's" in those other engines. SO hope people who keep their vehicles for a long time to expect to do at least one turbo rebuild.

A turbo rebuild does not mean an engine loss. A typical turbo rebuild will only set you back a couple of hundred dollars. Assuming the turbos will need to get rebuilt at 250k miles, and estimating you spend $1k on rebuilding both turbos, included labor. That is not that bad, you could also have the choice of buying a used turbo since those 3.5 ecoboost engines are now mass produced since 2011. I would take my chances on spending that amount of money to have a truck that has instant torque delivery a high horsepower output.

 

The speaker noise is whatever. Drove around a crew cab 2.7 this weekend and it actually sounds like a v8. Lol. But I'm not a big fan of it. But who cares about that ?

Let's stick to topic of the 5.3 and if you think there will be or needs to be a boost in hp or tq

I would like for them up up the power, I don't think it would be worth to trade my truck in for a little bit more hp, but I wonder how much improvement they can do. The easy way would be for them to offer a "retuned" higher horsepower 5.3, they could then advertise a new 10hp/10trq. It does seem like they could refine the engine mapping that is currently on our trucks though.
T1Kaiju Enthusiast

T1Kaiju

Posted
Posted

2000 sierra was 295 vs 99s @ 285. A simple tuning or exhaust modification will get a slight bump for manufacturers to brag about in comparison tests. 2016 could see minor jump imo...

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

ShotgunZ71 Senior Enthusiast

ShotgunZ71

Posted
Posted

Actually, when the 5.3 was introduced in 1999, it "only" had 270hp, up from the 350's 255hp. In 2000, they bumped it up to 285 and then up to 295 in 2004. It got bumped to 300-315 in 2007, I believe, and stayed that way until the new Ecotec3 engines came out for the 2014 MY with 355hp.

Yamiryder Enthusiast

Yamiryder

Posted
Posted

 

I will say though these V8 will out live the "Turbo's" in those other engines. SO hope people who keep their vehicles for a long time to expect to do at least one turbo rebuild.

 

As long as the PCV doesn't kill these EcoTech's.

T1Kaiju Enthusiast

T1Kaiju

Posted
Posted

Actually, when the 5.3 was introduced in 1999, it "only" had 270hp, up from the 350's 255hp. In 2000, they bumped it up to 285 and then up to 295 in 2004. It got bumped to 300-315 in 2007, I believe, and stayed that way until the new Ecotec3 engines came out for the 2014 MY with 355hp.

Oops, your right. I knew there was a small jump after a year. I must have confused my 00 Sierra and 04 Avalanche hp numbers...

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

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined

  • Who's Online   6 Members, 1 Anonymous, 1,706 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...