4.3 vs 5.3

[KARNUT]

Life too short, drive it like you stole it. Unless to rather go fishing, I rather go to cars and coffee.

Edited April 1, 2017 by KARNUT

[KARNUT]

To general not always true. I've seen on this website a 5.3 running mid 13s on E85 with a tune.

No offense, but you should hope you don't find any 6.2s to race, even stock. 4.3s aren't going to beat 5.3s, and 5.3s won't beat 6.2s.

 

The stock air filter is pretty high air flow already, but you might have a chance on 100% E85!

 

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f22/lingenfelter-tests-e85-through-new-silverado-119387/

 

I haven't tried E85 on my 5.3 as yet, but it was definitely noticeable in the 2014 4.3 I had. I wonder if the dealer had E85 in it on the lot when I test drove the 4.3 and that would make a lot of sense. I drove to the dealer in a 5.3l with 315hp/330ft lbs torque. I test drove a 4.3l that would have had 297hp and 330 ft lbs torque on E85, and would have been totally indiscernible from my 2010 5.3l.

 

Would be a pretty crafty sales tactic for the dealer, so I'm inclined to think they would be smart enough to figure this out.

[Brian S.]

Actually, I wonder if they run E85 in the flex fuel 5.3s. It would be a good sales tactic to compete with Ford and RAM.

 

About 10% more hp and torque in the test drives and no one would suspect that. If I had a car lot, I'd be doing that.

[Darth_Vader]

No offense, but you should hope you don't find any 6.2s to race, even stock. 4.3s aren't going to beat 5.3s, and 5.3s won't beat 6.2s.

 

The stock air filter is pretty high air flow already, but you might have a chance on 100% E85!

 

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f22/lingenfelter-tests-e85-through-new-silverado-119387/

 

I haven't tried E85 on my 5.3 as yet, but it was definitely noticeable in the 2014 4.3 I had. I wonder if the dealer had E85 in it on the lot when I test drove the 4.3 and that would make a lot of sense. I drove to the dealer in a 5.3l with 315hp/330ft lbs torque. I test drove a 4.3l that would have had 297hp and 330 ft lbs torque on E85, and would have been totally indiscernible from my 2010 5.3l.

 

Would be a pretty crafty sales tactic for the dealer, so I'm inclined to think they would be smart enough to figure this out.

Haha, I have no doubt that my truck would walk a 6.2l even with most bolt-ons up until about 100. After that I just don't have the gears.

 

You have to take into account a 5.3 in a RCSB has a weight to horsepower ratio of 12.3 to 1 where as a Crew Cab with a 6.2 comes in at 12.6 to 1, so it's already an even match. Add on top of that the fact my truck has few hundred pounds less unsprung weight not to mention all the other drivetrain mods, using a conservative 7 to 1 ratio on the unsprung vs sprung weight would actually being my weight to HP ratio down to something closer to 10.7 to 1 with bone stock pump gas HP ratings.

 

So unless having a L86 allows you to defy physics... Rawr!

Edited April 1, 2017 by Darth_Vader

[Brian S.]

Haha, I have no doubt that my truck would walk a 6.2l even with most bolt-ons up until about 100. After that I just don't have the gears.

 

You have to take into account a 5.3 in a RCSB has a weight to horsepower ratio of 12.3 to 1 where as a Crew Cab with a 6.2 comes in at 12.6 to 1, so it's already an even match. Add on top of that the fact my truck has few hundred pounds less unsprung weight not to mention all the other drivetrain mods, using a conservative 7 to 1 ratio on the unsprung vs sprung weight would actually being my weight to HP ratio down to something closer to 10.7 to 1 with bone stock pump gas HP ratings.

 

So unless having a L86 allows you to defy physics... Rawr!

Sorry! Didn't see the regular cab part. Yep you might.

[Darth_Vader]

Sorry! Didn't see the regular cab part. Yep you might.

Haha, it probably has more to do with the 4.56 gears with a positrac! I'm just being an idiot to be an idiot. I've had all size of GM motors in my cars and I'll be honest, the new crops of V6's are very impressive.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Darth_Vader

[truckguy82]

 

Given that we all drive on streets where speed is regulated, I'd say 0-60 is about all that matters on performance.

 

I wish more people recognized this fact. There are so many people who disregard 0-60 times.

 

It is pretty much the only aspect of performance you can safely take your car to the limit on public roads.

[KARNUT]

In west Texas 0-85 would be appropriate for merging, that's close enough to 1/4 mile times to matter, for anyone who merges on Texas HWYs.

[Donstar]

I wish more people recognized this fact. There are so many people who disregard 0-60 times.

 

It is pretty much the only aspect of performance you can safely take your car to the limit on public roads.

I'm not clear on this point. O-60 or 0-85 times are a good measure for comparison purposes but not sure how these apply to safety on public roads when comparing the 5.3 to the 4.3. If the conclusion is the 5.3 is faster than the 4.3 then these times are significant. If this data is used to justify a safety preference between the two then these times are not significant.

[truckguy82]

I'm not clear on this point. O-60 or 0-85 times are a good measure for comparison purposes but not sure how these apply to safety on public roads when comparing the 5.3 to the 4.3. If the conclusion is the 5.3 is faster than the 4.3 then these times are significant. If this data is used to justify a safety preference between the two then these times are not significant.

 

0-60 is one of the only performance metrics that you can safely achieve

 

Cornering G limits, top speed, 1/4 mile time, 60-130mph time, figure 8, etc all are pretty dangerous.

 

It's why a tesla p100d is one of the fastest cars in the world on the street, but will get left for dead on a circuit course or a texas mile event.

 

It apply's more to sports cars than trucks.

 

It is mostly aimed at those who think 0-60 time is an irrelevant performance metric and is over-used and over advertised.

[KARNUT]

This measure has been used since the beginning of cars pretty much. What other measures should be used? As far as personal responsibility that's up to the individual. I look at all measures when deciding on a vehicle, comfort and performance are at the top. If you stay on back roads then it doesn't matter much to some I guess. But merging on freeways getting up to speed matters.

[Donstar]

This measure has been used since the beginning of cars pretty much. What other measures should be used? As far as personal responsibility that's up to the individual. I look at all measures when deciding on a vehicle, comfort and performance are at the top. If you stay on back roads then it doesn't matter much to some I guess. But merging on freeways getting up to speed matters.

I'm not sure if your question is directed at my earlier comment. If it is, I think the 0-60 or 0-85 on a 1/4 mile is a good comparison tool. I am sure the results would prove that a 2014+ gm truck with a 5.3 will have a faster time than a comparable truck with a 4.3. The difference will not translate to me feeling safer on the highway with a 5.3. I have driven or owned vehicles that were not suitable for highway driving but I cannot think of any current American stock pickup truck that I would feel unsafe driving on North American highways.

[KARNUT]

I'm not sure if your question is directed at my earlier comment. If it is, I think the 0-60 or 0-85 on a 1/4 mile is a good comparison tool. I am sure the results would prove that a 2014+ gm truck with a 5.3 will have a faster time than a comparable truck with a 4.3. The difference will not translate to me feeling safer on the highway with a 5.3. I have driven or owned vehicles that were not suitable for highway driving but I cannot think of any current American stock pickup truck that I would feel unsafe driving on North American highways.

I think most vehicles now days can get up to speed to merge in traffic safely. I'm can imagine there's a 4.3 out there option just right that would give a 5.3 a good run. Say with a 345 gear on E85 against a 5.3 with a 308 on reg gas.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Knightfall]

I love my 4.3. I got 22 mpg on stock tires and after it broke in I can bark the tires just as easily as any V8 I've driven. Plus that big V6 has a very unique sound that I think's pretty cool.

[Grumpy Bear]

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_perf1.php

You will find the performance specs for the 1976 Corvette C-03 with the L48 350 and the Turbohydromatic 350 3 speed. A car I owned.

0-60 mph 9.7 seconds

Quarter mile 17.2 ET at 81 MPH

Weight 3591 lbs. Curb

Power to weight 20 lbs./hp.

 

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

2014 Silverado CCSB 4.3 Car and Driver instrument test.

Rolling 5-60 8.1 seconds

Quarter mile 16.0 ET at 87 MPH

Weight 5477 lbs. Curb

Power to weight 19.2 lbs/hp

Even the larger heavier crew cab standard bed is quicker than a middle 70’s Corvette.

 

The RCSB weighs only 4521 lbs. Curb, The truck I now own.

 

Power to weight 15.9 lbs./hp.

 

Just based on weight Wallace Racing Calculators places this a full second quicker than the crew cab 4.3.

 

That’s a 15 flat sea level quarter on 87 pump gas and the stock 3.23 gear.

 

Fact is that is darn near as quick as my 87 5.0 HO LX. It would be a drivers race.

 

​Anyone wish to argue that either the Corvette or the HO Mustang was too underpowered to clear a freeway ramp safely?

 

​CCSB 4x4 5.3 has about the same power to weight as the RCSB 4.3. Fractions of a pound per horse which BTW goes in the mini motors favor once E85 hits the tank. Again a drivers race.

 

The question isn't if the 4.3 is better or worse than a 5.3. Better for what? The question is how much weight am I going to ask it to accelerate.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Grumpy Bear