The Amazing 5.3 L83 V8

[4x4LJB]

In all my driving on 87 octane, I haven't heard a peep from the engine compartment that sounds iffy.

[Badass69]

In all my driving on 87 octane, I haven't heard a peep from the engine compartment that sounds iffy.

You probably never will either. Your knock sensors will pull timing before you ever hear anything.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Jon A]

Yeah, if you hear knocking from one of these engines you've done something really wrong....

[FL335i]

If you have the windows down, FL heat and traffic situation I can hear some rattle. Aka spark knock. Very rare, but in 40k and 16mo's I've heard it.... I've run 89 and 91. I don't recall any MPG gain. Just better throttle response and zero rattle. Gotta have the winders open to hear it... I've towed on 87, 89 and 91. Can't say for certain MPG's varied.

[scottie350]

Honestly given all the information been digging up, im worrying less about the warranty in regards to a tune. I think a tune is almost needed to avoid NEEDING to have the warranty

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[scottie350]

If you have the windows down, FL heat and traffic situation I can hear some rattle. Aka spark knock. Very rare, but in 40k and 16mo's I've heard it.... I've run 89 and 91. I don't recall any MPG gain. Just better throttle response and zero rattle. Gotta have the winders open to hear it... I've towed on 87, 89 and 91. Can't say for certain MPG's varied.

Ya thatd be ripe conditions for sparkknock on 87 thats for sure.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[K2xxSteve]

Hi all, first post, and major thread bump. Planning to pick up a ’17 Burb within the next few months. Was just doing a little background reading on the L83 and this thread came up in Google. Interesting discussion, and brings back memories. The octane debates never end! Lol!

My adventures with engines and fuel octane levels over the years...

We had a 2002 Toyota Highlander with the 3.0L V6 (1MZ-FE) which had a 10.5:1 compression ratio, port injection, and claimed to make 220hp and only “needing” regular grade fuel. Honestly, the car was a dog, and the overall powertrain calibration was poor. One day I tried an experiment by putting a tank of premium fuel in it and then gave it back to my wife, and she was so shocked at the difference and asked what I had done? It was less than a year old, but she said if felt like a brand new car. The car was noticeably quicker, powertrain calibration now seemed spot on, throttle response was much better, and it now had the torque to pull through the bottom end of 3rd gear without lugging. Very clearly, the powertrain was calibrated based on a premium fuel map, but they marketed it as a “regular fuel” vehicle for marketing purposes.

The power ratings were a lie. This was back on the old SAE J1349 standards of the 1990’s and before the new 2005 J1349 and J2723 “SAE Certified” standards came around which tightened up all of the loopholes that especially Japanese manufacturers had been exploiting to inflate power figures. This particular engine line took the biggest hit, and true power dropped from 220 down to 200 in the Highlander on regular (and from 210 to 190hp in the Camry!) It probably made about 210 on premium in our Highlander. Some time later I managed to get an OBD-II data logger and put regular fuel back in it and logged some data, and then put premium in it again and took some more data, and found that it ran about 3-4 degrees more timing advance at WOT, in addition to in excess of 10 degrees more timing BTDC at light and medium loads, which explained why it felt so much more crisp on premium, rather than the slog of regular. We never put regular in that car again. One thing that the new J1349 standards of 2005 did was remove the loophole of being able to advertise the power an engine makes on premium grade fuel, but only saying that regular was “required”. Now if you want to do that, you have to say that premium fuel is required to make that level of power, or if you’re marketing a vehicle as taking “regular grade fuel”, you have to rate (or de-rate) power to that grade of fuel. No more loopholes like that.

I also had a Toyota RAV4 V6 with the 3.5L 2GR-FE engine, also port-injected, 10.8:1 CR, etc. It had been rated at 280hp before J1349 2005, but dropped to 269 after. It ran OK on regular grade fuel, but it would hold top gear going up highway grades much better on premium grade fuel due to making more torque, whereas if you put regular in it it’d start hunting back and forth between 4th and 5th gears, which was annoying (5AT). I ended up running premium fuel in that vehicle also, just for the drivability.

Much earlier technology. I had a 1999 Nissan Maxima, 3.0L V6 VQ30DE engine, port-injection, 10.0:1 CR, 5-speed manual tranny. That was a fun little car. This was an engine that had a knock sensor, but the 1990’s era engine control electronics were primitive enough that it didn’t have a regular fuel ignition advance “map” to run if knock was detected, and regular grade fuel was in the tank. I found that in certain engine load conditions, like light throttle at the bottom of 3rd gear with the engine heat soaked, I would actually get REVERSION where the timing was far too advanced for regular fuel to the point that it would yank the engine to a halt. It didn’t actually do that because I immediately got off the throttle so that it would idle and recover. On the data logger, this engine would run as much as 42* BTDC ignition at light loads. I was trying to see if I could save a bit of money on regular grade gas with all of the long distance driving I was doing at the time, but the driveability was poor, and it would pull so much timing out that it had almost no power. It was better on 89 octane but still had some issues, and eventually I just gave up and stuck with 91 octane or higher, what it was designed to run on.

Before that I had a 2001 Honda Accord V6, 9.4:1 CR, port injection, and a 200hp rating on regular grade fuel. This engine was half-baked, and didn’t even have a knock control system installed in it!!! How backwards! Timing was set from the factory for regular grade fuel and the 9.4:1 CR of that time supported that fine. After years of debate on the forums, it was actually Car & Driver magazine that settled the debate once and for all when they dynoed a bunch of cars on both grades of fuel, and actually found that this engine made LESS power on premium! Timing was set for 87 only, and with no knock control system, there was no mechanism to tell the engine that a higher grade of fuel was in there, and no ability to advance and make more power on higher grade fuel. 9.4:1 CR was a bit low for that, anyways.

I’ve been driving a 2011 BMW 335i for the past six years (yeah big change going to a Burb but that’s a long story!). This car has the BMW N55 engine, (3.0L Inline-6, single turbo, 10.2:1 CR, direct injection, dual VVT (Double VANOS), and BMW’s Valvetronic throttle control which is actually pretty nifty (uses infinitely variable valve lift, no throttle plate!). DUH! You put premium grade fuel in this engine! I don’t know why you’d put anything less than that in it, but people do it.

Now back to the L83.

I’m not surprised that the engine will perk up a bit above 87 octane, which is actually good news for me, as I’m a bit hesitant to go with a Burb and the 5.3 rather than a Yukon Denali XL and the 6.2. With the 2005 SAE J1349 rules, the 5.3L engine makes 355hp/383tq SAE Certified (J2723) on regular grade fuel. To whatever extend it perks up on 89 or 91+ octane fuel, that’s above and beyond the 355/383 figures “certified” on regular grade gas. The E85 ratings are 380/416, which is pretty impressive.

No, it won’t take 5000 miles to figure out that there’s a different grade of fuel in the tank. It didn’t back in 2002, so I don’t see why it would in 2017? The engine control electronics have the smarts to figure out what’s going on based on patterns seen from the knock control system. They probably try to run as much advance as possible on each start, and if it sees knock then assumes regular, and switches back to a regular fuel map in the engine controls to keep operation smooth. When you shut the engine off and fill up a dry tank with premium, now it won’t see knock and assumes premium in the tank, and you have more power and it runs the maximum advance it’s programmed to run. The engine controls know when you’ve filled the tank. It might try this on each new tank. How much timing advance will an engine run and what’s the most octane it can really use on the factory engine tune? Tough to figure that out on the road, but it can be done with enough controlled observation, but easy to figure out with a data logger or some dyno time with something like a Dynapack dyno where you can actively vary the load.

Anyways, I think the 5.3 will be more than good enough for me. Took a Burb for a test drive and thought it was fine, but didn’t exactly flog it with my family and a salesperson in the car. My days of flying around town flogging my 335i are done. Amazing cars, but if I really valued tearing around like a damned fool, I wouldn’t be looking at 3-ton SUVs. With the L86/6.2 engine having an 11.5:1 CR, I can see how it’d only take premium, and detune itself a ton on less. That engine might very well make less on regular grade fuel than a 5.3 on higher grade gas or E85. Similarly, a Toyota 3.0L 1MZ-FE running properly as the engineers who designed the thing intended on 91 octane fuel, would run about the same and make about the same power is a Toyota 3.3L 3MZ-FE V6 dumbed down on regular fuel.

From the Yukon/Yukon XL Denali Owner’s Manual (6.2L/L86):

“Use premium unleaded gasoline meeting ASTM specification D4814 with a posted octane rating of 91 or higher. Regular unleaded gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher can be used, but acceleration and fuel economy will be reduced, and an audible knocking noise may be heard. If this occurs, use a gasoline rated at 91 octane or higher as soon as possible. Otherwise, the engine could be damaged. If heavy knocking is heard when using gasoline with a 91 octane rating or higher, the engine needs service.”

From the Suburban Owner’s Manual (5.3L/L83):

"Use regular unleaded gasoline meeting ASTM specification D4814 with a posted octane rating of 87 or higher. Do not use gasoline with a posted octane rating of less than 87, as this may cause engine knock and will lower fuel economy."

So they're pretty clear about what you should be putting in the tanks, and detuning of the 6.2/L86 on lower than 91 octane. And for the 5.3/L83 they do say "87 or higher" octane, and not just "87 octane" and nothing but 87. Reading between the lines, that's code that the engine can make use of higher than 87 octane fuel, but they try not to advertise that because then that narrows the power gap with the 6.2.

Steve

[BlackHawkZ71]

The TCM tune is 100% garbage lol

i agree i found out driving in M mode the tcm junk becomes non existent

[f8l vnm]

its a good engine. nothing special .Dependable and reliable but Power wise is decent and again not some world beater.

The 5.0 makes more power and torque and in 2018 when the new 5.0 comes out it will make the gap even bigger. The E85 5.3 numbers is awesome.

383 and 411 would be great

[NomadicCPO]

 

Hi all, first post, and major thread bump. Planning to pick up a 17 Burb within the next few months. Was just doing a little background reading on the L83 and this thread came up in Google. Interesting discussion, and brings back memories. The octane debates never end! Lol!

 

My adventures with engines and fuel octane levels over the years...

 

We had a 2002 Toyota Highlander with the 3.0L V6 (1MZ-FE) which had a 10.5:1 compression ratio, port injection, and claimed to make 220hp and only needing regular grade fuel. Honestly, the car was a dog, and the overall powertrain calibration was poor. One day I tried an experiment by putting a tank of premium fuel in it and then gave it back to my wife, and she was so shocked at the difference and asked what I had done? It was less than a year old, but she said if felt like a brand new car. The car was noticeably quicker, powertrain calibration now seemed spot on, throttle response was much better, and it now had the torque to pull through the bottom end of 3rd gear without lugging. Very clearly, the powertrain was calibrated based on a premium fuel map, but they marketed it as a regular fuel vehicle for marketing purposes.

 

The power ratings were a lie. This was back on the old SAE J1349 standards of the 1990s and before the new 2005 J1349 and J2723 SAE Certified standards came around which tightened up all of the loopholes that especially Japanese manufacturers had been exploiting to inflate power figures. This particular engine line took the biggest hit, and true power dropped from 220 down to 200 in the Highlander on regular (and from 210 to 190hp in the Camry!) It probably made about 210 on premium in our Highlander. Some time later I managed to get an OBD-II data logger and put regular fuel back in it and logged some data, and then put premium in it again and took some more data, and found that it ran about 3-4 degrees more timing advance at WOT, in addition to in excess of 10 degrees more timing BTDC at light and medium loads, which explained why it felt so much more crisp on premium, rather than the slog of regular. We never put regular in that car again. One thing that the new J1349 standards of 2005 did was remove the loophole of being able to advertise the power an engine makes on premium grade fuel, but only saying that regular was required. Now if you want to do that, you have to say that premium fuel is required to make that level of power, or if youre marketing a vehicle as taking regular grade fuel, you have to rate (or de-rate) power to that grade of fuel. No more loopholes like that.

 

I also had a Toyota RAV4 V6 with the 3.5L 2GR-FE engine, also port-injected, 10.8:1 CR, etc. It had been rated at 280hp before J1349 2005, but dropped to 269 after. It ran OK on regular grade fuel, but it would hold top gear going up highway grades much better on premium grade fuel due to making more torque, whereas if you put regular in it itd start hunting back and forth between 4th and 5th gears, which was annoying (5AT). I ended up running premium fuel in that vehicle also, just for the drivability.

 

Much earlier technology. I had a 1999 Nissan Maxima, 3.0L V6 VQ30DE engine, port-injection, 10.0:1 CR, 5-speed manual tranny. That was a fun little car. This was an engine that had a knock sensor, but the 1990s era engine control electronics were primitive enough that it didnt have a regular fuel ignition advance map to run if knock was detected, and regular grade fuel was in the tank. I found that in certain engine load conditions, like light throttle at the bottom of 3rd gear with the engine heat soaked, I would actually get REVERSION where the timing was far too advanced for regular fuel to the point that it would yank the engine to a halt. It didnt actually do that because I immediately got off the throttle so that it would idle and recover. On the data logger, this engine would run as much as 42* BTDC ignition at light loads. I was trying to see if I could save a bit of money on regular grade gas with all of the long distance driving I was doing at the time, but the driveability was poor, and it would pull so much timing out that it had almost no power. It was better on 89 octane but still had some issues, and eventually I just gave up and stuck with 91 octane or higher, what it was designed to run on.

 

Before that I had a 2001 Honda Accord V6, 9.4:1 CR, port injection, and a 200hp rating on regular grade fuel. This engine was half-baked, and didnt even have a knock control system installed in it!!! How backwards! Timing was set from the factory for regular grade fuel and the 9.4:1 CR of that time supported that fine. After years of debate on the forums, it was actually Car & Driver magazine that settled the debate once and for all when they dynoed a bunch of cars on both grades of fuel, and actually found that this engine made LESS power on premium! Timing was set for 87 only, and with no knock control system, there was no mechanism to tell the engine that a higher grade of fuel was in there, and no ability to advance and make more power on higher grade fuel. 9.4:1 CR was a bit low for that, anyways.

 

Ive been driving a 2011 BMW 335i for the past six years (yeah big change going to a Burb but thats a long story!). This car has the BMW N55 engine, (3.0L Inline-6, single turbo, 10.2:1 CR, direct injection, dual VVT (Double VANOS), and BMWs Valvetronic throttle control which is actually pretty nifty (uses infinitely variable valve lift, no throttle plate!). DUH! You put premium grade fuel in this engine! I dont know why youd put anything less than that in it, but people do it.

 

Now back to the L83.

 

Im not surprised that the engine will perk up a bit above 87 octane, which is actually good news for me, as Im a bit hesitant to go with a Burb and the 5.3 rather than a Yukon Denali XL and the 6.2. With the 2005 SAE J1349 rules, the 5.3L engine makes 355hp/383tq SAE Certified (J2723) on regular grade fuel. To whatever extend it perks up on 89 or 91+ octane fuel, thats above and beyond the 355/383 figures certified on regular grade gas. The E85 ratings are 380/416, which is pretty impressive.

 

No, it wont take 5000 miles to figure out that theres a different grade of fuel in the tank. It didnt back in 2002, so I dont see why it would in 2017? The engine control electronics have the smarts to figure out whats going on based on patterns seen from the knock control system. They probably try to run as much advance as possible on each start, and if it sees knock then assumes regular, and switches back to a regular fuel map in the engine controls to keep operation smooth. When you shut the engine off and fill up a dry tank with premium, now it wont see knock and assumes premium in the tank, and you have more power and it runs the maximum advance its programmed to run. The engine controls know when youve filled the tank. It might try this on each new tank. How much timing advance will an engine run and whats the most octane it can really use on the factory engine tune? Tough to figure that out on the road, but it can be done with enough controlled observation, but easy to figure out with a data logger or some dyno time with something like a Dynapack dyno where you can actively vary the load.

 

Anyways, I think the 5.3 will be more than good enough for me. Took a Burb for a test drive and thought it was fine, but didnt exactly flog it with my family and a salesperson in the car. My days of flying around town flogging my 335i are done. Amazing cars, but if I really valued tearing around like a damned fool, I wouldnt be looking at 3-ton SUVs. With the L86/6.2 engine having an 11.5:1 CR, I can see how itd only take premium, and detune itself a ton on less. That engine might very well make less on regular grade fuel than a 5.3 on higher grade gas or E85. Similarly, a Toyota 3.0L 1MZ-FE running properly as the engineers who designed the thing intended on 91 octane fuel, would run about the same and make about the same power is a Toyota 3.3L 3MZ-FE V6 dumbed down on regular fuel.

 

From the Yukon/Yukon XL Denali Owners Manual (6.2L/L86):

 

Use premium unleaded gasoline meeting ASTM specification D4814 with a posted octane rating of 91 or higher. Regular unleaded gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher can be used, but acceleration and fuel economy will be reduced, and an audible knocking noise may be heard. If this occurs, use a gasoline rated at 91 octane or higher as soon as possible. Otherwise, the engine could be damaged. If heavy knocking is heard when using gasoline with a 91 octane rating or higher, the engine needs service.

 

From the Suburban Owners Manual (5.3L/L83):

 

"Use regular unleaded gasoline meeting ASTM specification D4814 with a posted octane rating of 87 or higher. Do not use gasoline with a posted octane rating of less than 87, as this may cause engine knock and will lower fuel economy."

 

So they're pretty clear about what you should be putting in the tanks, and detuning of the 6.2/L86 on lower than 91 octane. And for the 5.3/L83 they do say "87 or higher" octane, and not just "87 octane" and nothing but 87. Reading between the lines, that's code that the engine can make use of higher than 87 octane fuel, but they try not to advertise that because then that narrows the power gap with the 6.2.

 

Steve

Great post. My last vehicle was a 2007 RAV4 with the 2GR-FE. I noticed the exact same phenomenon you described during my daily commute over a mountain pass. On premium gas, it would remain locked in 5th gear the entire uphill stretch while maintaining 60 mph on cruise control. On regular gas, it would ALWAYS, no matter what the environmental conditions were, drop into 4th gear to maintain that speed. As peppy as that engine was, it was a beast with a tank full of premium. When I owned it, the price difference between regular and premium was 20 cents, so to me it was an easy choice what to fill up with.

 

My 5.3 Silverado does the exact same thing over steep grades...it stays in 8th or 7th on long uphill climbs on premium, but will drop into 6th gear on regular. Honestly can't tell a difference on the butt dyno though, and haven't noticed the mileage change at all. The biggest reason I stick with regular now despite this? The 70 cent price difference they charge now for premium. I'm not racing this truck and not getting better mileage...so why pay 30% more to fill up when regular does the job just fine...retarded timing and all.

[mookdoc6]

its a good engine. nothing special .Dependable and reliable but Power wise is decent and again not some world beater.

The 5.0 makes more power and torque and in 2018 when the new 5.0 comes out it will make the gap even bigger. The E85 5.3 numbers is awesome.

383 and 411 would be great

There is 30% headroom in the L83 so I wouldn't expect the gap to be all that? At the end of 7-8+ years the 5.0 will way more issues going on than the poor little L83...

[pickmeup]

Seems as tho I read 5.0 is going the way of the dodo bird . It is going to be replaced by small v-8 in truck. Looks like the amazing 5.3 is going to outlive the 5.0 ford.

[mookdoc6]

Seems as tho I read 5.0 is going the way of the dodo bird . It is going to be replaced by small v-8 in truck. Looks like the amazing 5.3 is going to outlive the 5.0 ford.

I believe that whole modular Ford V-8 goes back decades? I am by no means a Ford knowledgeable person though....Other than I can't even stomach driving one! This new ecotec Architecture is extremely new and has the ability to address future technologies too...How is that Forward think FERD? I mean nobody will say anything when they take a step backwards and their new V-8 gasser has nothing to do with turbot's?

[RDKILL]

I got the Black Bear Performance tune, and had a 30% E85 tune done and I won't be going back to only 93.

With the mix of E85 & 93 the truck has great acceleration and pull, not to mention the E85 is only $1.49 per gal.

 

I would like to have a Flex truck, but the tune is doing just fine, only thing is E85 is not found at many gas stations.

[Grumpy Bear]

It is the intake valve closing angle that controls cylinder pressure and these motors are equipped with VVT whose function is to manipulate the intake valves closing point to control cylinder pressure. It has no effect on overlap. VVT is the reason these motors have such a high and flat torque response and such a wide separation between peak torque rpm and peak horsepower rpm. It's the reason they can utilize such high static compression ratios and use such low octane fuels. It's why the are so efficient in fuel usage and in making torque from so little displacement.

 

Dual-Equal Cam Phasing: all Gen V engines feature dual-equal camshaft phasing (variable valve timing), which works with Active Fuel Management to enhance fuel economy, while also maximizing engine performance for given demands and conditions. A vane-type phaser is installed on the front of the camshaft to change its angular orientation relative to the sprocket, thereby adjusting the timing of valve operation on the fly. It is a dual-equal cam phasing system that adjusts camshaft timing at the same rate for both intake and exhaust valves. The system allows linear delivery of torque, with near-peak levels over a broad rpm range, and high specific output (horsepower per liter of displacement) without sacrificing overall engine response, or driveability. It also provides another effective tool for controlling exhaust emissions. The vane phaser is actuated by hydraulic pressure and flow from engine oil, and managed by a solenoid that controls oil flow to the phaser.

Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/lv3/#ixzz4azXDsekF