Jump to content

4.3 vs 5.3

Manny254

By Manny254
in Engines & Drivetrain

 Share

Recommended Posts

Brian S. Enthusiast

Brian S.

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Like 3
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Colossus
Colossus

Eh. People were towing boats like that with the old 255 HP or less 5.7L trucks of yesteryears. And now a V-6 does it even better. No big deal.

Grumpy Bear
Grumpy Bear

We do realize that the ICE is a demand device…right? Motor only makes the power it needs to overcome the load running against it.   That said, with nearly 300 Hp on tap out of the 4.3 Ecotec3 those

Brian S.
Brian S.

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 mo

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

 

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. Enthusiast

Brian S.

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by Brian S.
  • Like 1
CharlestonJoe Enthusiast

CharlestonJoe

Posted
Posted

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 Senior Enthusiast

truckguy82

Posted
Posted

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 Enthusiast

dasimmon

Posted
Posted

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. Enthusiast

Brian S.

Posted
Posted

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. Enthusiast

Brian S.

Posted
Posted

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 Enthusiast

CharlestonJoe

Posted
Posted

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 Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted

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?

  • Like 1
Brian S. Enthusiast

Brian S.

Posted
Posted

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 Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

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 Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by Donstar
Brian S. Enthusiast

Brian S.

Posted
Posted

 

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 Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

 

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,897
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    ncleg
    Newest Member
    ncleg
    Joined

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 1,303 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • dna9656
      New to Me 2010 SLE (Quirks, Issues)

      By dna9656 · Posted

      Your tire pressure issue may just be batteries, you can reset them using tge Ing switch (I think) and the owner's  manual. ChatGTP will b e a faster, better help than Google.
    • Another JR
      Towing In Loose Gravel

      By Another JR · Posted

      The thinking is that starting out in a higher gear makes it easier to avoid applying excessive torque when pressing the gas pedal. In a modern 4wd truck with 4 low and a limited slip or locking rear end, I would use 4 low and try to crawl up the ramp. Sometimes if they are too slippery, you have to back up to let the boat have some bouyancy, and then accelerate briskly to get some momentum to help you pull the through the slippery parts. 
    • XY74
      Roll up bed cover experiences

      By XY74 · Posted

      I have a Retrax pro that I first had on my 2020 chevy and transferred it to my current GMC.  It stays in the garage most of the time, so hard for me to judge it's long term weather resistance.  It still works perfectly, been very durable.  It doesn't see oil patch usage, but it's not a mall queen.  It keeps most things mostly dry (small leaks) and the security of it is enough to slow someone down but not keep them out for long.  I would buy one again, it works for me.     
    • fm2176
      New to Me 2010 SLE (Quirks, Issues)

      By fm2176 · Posted

      Thanks to the convenience of Amazon, I was able to get a few things done to the truck today.  I installed Carquest Premium oil and air filters with five quarts of Mobil1 High Mileage 10-30 along with a quart of Pennzoil Platinum 5w-30 I already had.  The latch for the flip up center console lid was broken so I replaced it along with the power mirror switch.  I found my push retainer assortment this morning and reattached the plastic under the bumper and it was only held on with a few screws and retainers.  Then I programmed a new remote keyless entry fob so I can lock my dog in the truck when I take her out with me (I've got to keep the air going for her since it's been in the 100s).  Finally, I ordered some LED interior bulbs and replaced the reading lamps.  The front lights are working fine while one of the back lights only works intermittently and the other not at all.   While under the truck, I found the source of at least one of the noises: the sway bar links need replacing.  I ordered a set of Suspension Dudes links with Code Red bushings.  Never heard of them, but they're made in the USA and have decent reviews.  While making yet another Amazon order, I went ahead and added a set of front tow hooks.  I went with red, since that's the color of the sway bar link and bushings and it should look decent enough on a black and chrome truck.  Speaking of which, it doesn't bug me much, but the passenger side mirror has a chrome cap while the driver side doesn't, so eventually I'll make them match one way or another.  Oh, and I ordered a $20 TPMS reset tool.  No idea if it will do anything for my sensors but it was cheap and will work for the Ford Transit Connect as well.     For tradition's sake, I ordered a new oil change wrench.  I kept the Snap-On 9/16"x15mm GM wrench I bought when I was 18 in the 2006 GMC from the time I bought that truck until the truck was lost.  While I was tempted, there's no need to spend $80 for a new SO wrench, or even $50 with shipping for a used one on Ebay.  I just bought a Duratech 15mm extra-long ratcheting wrench to do the job as needed.  It works, and if I like that wrench enough, I'll buy the set.  
    • Another JR
      Multigate electrical problem

      By Another JR · Posted

      The recall is for exactly this issue - those drain holes combined with the limited environmental capability of the tailgate electronics card inside the tailgate were a problem. The “safety issue” was the potential for the tailgate to spontaneously open, but all kinds of tailgate misbehavior can occur from water contamination of that control card.    There is no real fix yet. The initial recall just disabled the tailgate. Later, when parts became available, they would replace bad parts with new parts of the same bad design. My dealer is going nuts because the few times I let them get their hands on my truck, my tailgate is off due to a slide-in camper installation. They really want to cut my tailgate wires, but I won’t give them the chance. I will let them get their dirty hands on it when a real fix (redesign) is available.  My tailgate, which works just fine with sealant plugging the drain holes, will remain safe in a dry storage crate until then.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...