4.3 vs 5.3

[Brian S.]

People that say trucks today aren't quick are either hard to please or haven't been driving very long. My 14 on E 85 rivaled many of my performances cars of the 70s- 2000s. Even the famous 70 chevell SS 396-350 HP stock on street tires. I've seen singal cabs 5.3s on E-85 run mid 13s on this web site, slow indeed.

 

I agree that we live in a "golden era" of car performance compared to the 60s and 70s.

 

What I'm saying is all this "5.3l performance is the stuff! Makes the 4.3l look like a slug!" is kind of a moot point when 5.3l trucks are over 7 second 0-60 vehicles and plenty of grocery hauler sedans, cute utes, and mini vans that are in the 5s and 6s. (and some in the 4s)

 

It's kind of like saying "My slug is a bit faster than your slug", and the 6.2l is the only 6 second 0-60 in the bunch. Trucks just aren't built for speed.

 

And above all, if your 1999-2013 5.3l was fast enough for you, the 4.3l is as well.

 

For the right price and tow needs <4000lbs, the 4.3l can be a good deal. Not if the only difference is the spec sheet cost of the 5.3 upgrade, but if you can get one $2-$3K cheaper due to less demand, makes sense to me.

[KARNUT]

 

I agree that we live in a "golden era" of car performance compared to the 60s and 70s.

 

What I'm saying is all this "5.3l performance is the stuff! Makes the 4.3l look like a slug!" is kind of a moot point when 5.3l trucks are over 7 second 0-60 vehicles and plenty of grocery hauler sedans, cute utes, and mini vans that are in the 5s and 6s. (and some in the 4s)

 

It's kind of like saying "My slug is a bit faster than your slug", and the 6.2l is the only 6 second 0-60 in the bunch. Trucks just aren't built for speed.

 

And above all, if your 1999-2013 5.3l was fast enough for you, the 4.3l is as well.

 

For the right price and tow needs <4000lbs, the 4.3l can be a good deal. Not if the only difference is the spec sheet cost of the 5.3 upgrade, but if you can get one $2-$3K cheaper due to less demand, makes sense to me.

I have no problems with V6s, I have a mid sized SUV with a V6 and a full sized sport sedan with a V6. Both will blow the doors off my 94 impala ss I had. My SUV is close to the 0-60 times of my trailblazer ss I had. I don't feel the need to modify for performance anymore. Of course I'm older so that could have something to do with it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian S.]

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/honda-0-60-mph-times/

 

That's what I'm talking about, 5/6 Honda Acoords faster than a 5.3l truck, and 3 of them much faster.

 

If soccer moms in Accord sedans can lay rubber at the lights and drive away from your 5.3l truck I don't think a person has any business talking about 4,3l being "slugs".

 

4.3l and 5.3l trucks are pretty slow in the vehicle world, the .7 - 1 second faster (depending on source) I've seen doesn't make me think "Thank god I have a 5.3l! Might be able to dust that Camry next to me if they have the 4 cylinder!"

 

At the end of the day if you're getting to 60 in 7.3 or 8.3 seconds you didn't buy the vehicle for speed.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Brian S.

[CharlestonJoe]

I'm hoping a tune will fix my 4.3 slug, I have driven other makes and models with V6's in them and I know GM could make them with a little more zip. I'm not talking about racing anyone or any of that nonsense, I'm simply talking about zipping out into traffic and such. I was given a 2017 Expedition as a rental while my truck was in the shop and that had the 3.5 in it and that thing had some zip. If Ford could do it, GM can. I think GM just has them programmed to optimize fuel mileage.

I know the new 4.3 is faster than the older V8's, as some punk kid was coaxing me to race him in his dualed out Tahoe as we ended up side by side at a couple red lights, I ended up blowing his doors off.

[truckguy82]

Imo what they feel like and what they are capable of are 2 different things.

 

A v8 just feels a lot more powerful because of the powerband.

[dasimmon]

My buddy is a contractor and works out of his truck all day. Had the 4.3 and nothing but good things to say about it

[Brian S.]

My buddy is a contractor and works out of his truck all day. Had the 4.3 and nothing but good things to say about it

 

He's probably used to the old 4.8 and 5.3l small blocks and finds the new 4.3l pretty similar.

[Brian S.]

I'm hoping a tune will fix my 4.3 slug, I have driven other makes and models with V6's in them and I know GM could make them with a little more zip. I'm not talking about racing anyone or any of that nonsense, I'm simply talking about zipping out into traffic and such. I was given a 2017 Expedition as a rental while my truck was in the shop and that had the 3.5 in it and that thing had some zip. If Ford could do it, GM can. I think GM just has them programmed to optimize fuel mileage.

I know the new 4.3 is faster than the older V8's, as some punk kid was coaxing me to race him in his dualed out Tahoe as we ended up side by side at a couple red lights, I ended up blowing his doors off.

You do know the 3.5 in the expedition is their larger size turbo charged engine that costs a lot more than the 4.3, right?

[CharlestonJoe]

You do know the 3.5 in the expedition is their larger size turbo charged engine that costs a lot more than the 4.3, right?

I get it, you like your 4.3. I think it's just ok.

[Donstar]

I went with the 4.3 it was in a truck that basically had all the features me and the wife were looking for in a vehicle

Your post is still alive and well! What is your impression of the 4.3 after after three months of ownership?

[Brian S.]

I get it, you like your 4.3. I think it's just ok.

I don't have a 4.3l, I'm on my second 5.3l.

 

I just jump into these threads because I had a 4.3l and for towing my ~3000lb fishing boat, and doing the outdoor sports related hauling I do, it worked great.

 

I paid less in insurance, less for gas, and think I paid less for the truck because demand is soft on 4.3s. (I think I paid around $30K for a LT2 Z71 4wd Xcab and the list was $42 or $43).

 

It drove and towed about the same as the 2010 5.3l I traded in on it. (and when I traded the 4.3 in they only knocked $1k off my negotiated trade in price off it when they pulled it up on the computer and found out is was a 4.3l)

 

The 4.3s are far under rated on truck forums. Just because this gen of trucks came out with more hp/torque doesn't mean the hp/torque most of us had for decades doesn't work any longer.

[Grumpy Bear]

RCSB 4.3 RWD weighs about 4,521 lbs. 285 hp. = 15.8 lbs. per horsepower.

 

The 5.3 in the 2LZ 4WD Crew Cab Long Box at 5433 lbs. and you get a power to weight of 15.3 lbs. per horsepower.

 

Almost identical to the RCSB 4.3 RWD. In fact their power to weigh is much closer with full tanks as the CCLB carries another 10 gallons of fuel.

 

2LT 4.3L 4WD Crew Cab Long Box tips in around 5360 lbs. 285 hp. = 18.8 lbs. per horsepower. Adding 840 pounds to any ride will make it a slug.

 

We never ask the right questions when the things are debated. Why is that?

[Donstar]

RCSB 4.3 RWD weighs about 4,521 lbs. 285 hp. = 15.8 lbs. per horsepower.

 

The 5.3 in the 2LZ 4WD Crew Cab Long Box at 5433 lbs. and you get a power to weight of 15.3 lbs. per horsepower.

 

Almost identical to the RCSB 4.3 RWD. In fact their power to weigh is much closer with full tanks as the CCLB carries another 10 gallons of fuel.

 

2LT 4.3L 4WD Crew Cab Long Box tips in around 5360 lbs. 285 hp. = 18.8 lbs. per horsepower. Adding 840 pounds to any ride will make it a slug.

 

We never ask the right questions when the things are debated. Why is that?

Interesting idea. This is one way to compare vehicles and has some merit. It doesn't work as a formula to define what makes a vehicle a slug but I don't doubt that a lighter regular cab will have more pep than a 4X4 crew. For fun I checked out this formula with a HD 4X4 crew Dmax and the weight is 19.1 lbs per horsepower!

2

Edited March 28, 2017 by Donstar

[Brian S.]

 

Interesting idea. This is one way to compare vehicles and has some merit. It doesn't work as a formula to define what makes a vehicle a slug but I don't doubt that a lighter regular cab will have more pep than a 4X4 crew. For fun I checked out this formula with a HD 4X4 crew Dmax and the weight is 19.1 lbs per horsepower!

2

 

 

Yep.

Gearing, aerodynamics, tires all play into the 0-60 and quarter mile equation as well.

 

There's another way to check if it's a "slug" as well:

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-chevrolet-silverado-v-6-instrumented-test-review

 

 

 

This helped our V-6–powered Silverado turn a quarter-mile time of 15.7 seconds at 89 mph. That’s a tenth of a second faster than the 6.0-liter V-8 “VortecMAX” Silverado we tested back in 2007. But there is a catch: We had E85 in the tank this time.....Burning just gas, our quarter-mile time increased to 16 seconds flat at 87 mph. And no matter which fuel you put in the V-6, it’s still off the pace of the new and much ­ballyhooed LT1 V-8 that did 15.3 seconds at 92 mph.

 

So on E85 the 4.3 is 4/10 of a second slower than the 5.3 on regular gas, and 7/10 slower on regular gas in the quarter mile.

 

This is Car and Driver instrumented tests, I personally don't consider the differences between 15.3, 15.7, and 16 flat very significant.

 

For example, the mighty Honda Accord V6 makes it down that quarter mile in 14.2 seconds, over a second faster than the 5.3 Silverado.

 

http://www.motortrend.com/news/honda-accord-2017-car-of-the-year-contender/

 

Or a Subaru Forester with the good engine nails it in 15 seconds flat:

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-subaru-forester-20xt-test-review

[Grumpy Bear]

 

Interesting idea. This is one way to compare vehicles and has some merit. It doesn't work as a formula to define what makes a vehicle a slug but I don't doubt that a lighter regular cab will have more pep than a 4X4 crew. For fun I checked out this formula with a HD 4X4 crew Dmax and the weight is 19.1 lbs per horsepower!

2

 

 

Isn't my idea. Goes back about as long as power plants have been moving machines. Oh, and Brian, that LT1 isn't the motor in the current K2's. Just say'n.