Jump to content

Trading my 15 5.3 for 18 6.2

SILVER SLED

Recommended Posts

TXGREEK Senior Enthusiast

TXGREEK

Posted
Posted

If you actually just You tube 5.3 versus 6.2. The 6.2 blows away the 5.3 in towing and all around performance. This is not just an opinion, it’s a fact! The v6 and 5.3 are perfectly fine to have but you’re limited and to those who have a v6 or 5.3 I hope you enjoy them because they’re just fine for what you use them for. God Bless and Happy New Year!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Nasty Senior Enthusiast

Nasty

Posted
Posted
Just now, truckguy82 said:

Just making sure others don’t listen to your factually wrong opinion

 

Also you are definitely trolling, been frequenting forums for about 20 years now. It’s incredibly obvious. Rookie trolls don’t even realize they are doing it intellionally, it’s just their irritating personality exposing itself. Bet if I searched I could find a ton of obviously controversial comments to get a rise out of people.

I am not trolling. I can promise that.  The 6.2 does have it's advantages as I said in another thread 

 

Towing, yes for sure. It will outdo the 5.3 anyday 

 

It towed our 31' trailer fine.  The 5.3 wouldn't have 

Likarok Senior Enthusiast

Likarok

Posted
Posted
On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 7:50 PM, seamus2154 said:

I'm over 50 and still drive the piss out of my stuff too! LOL I drive my Zo6 on the track whenever I can, and I tow it there with my 6.2! LOL You will love the upgrade. 

Hell I am over 60 and still drive like you! hahaha

Nasty Senior Enthusiast

Nasty

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, SILVER SLED said:

I've seen truckguy82 posts and you could tell him he's right and he'd still argue.

I'm not hating.  Both are great and have a purpose   wife likes her truck and I love mine 

Havvkeye Enthusiast

Havvkeye

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Nasty said:

I'm not hating.  Both are great and have a purpose   wife likes her truck and I love mine 

That is where you are wrong.  I have been frequenting AOL chat rooms for a good 25 years and can say with confidence, you don't love your truck, it has been proven through YouTube videos.

Nasty Senior Enthusiast

Nasty

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Havvkeye said:

That is where you are wrong.  I have been frequenting AOL chat rooms for a good 25 years and can say with confidence, you don't love your truck, it has been proven through YouTube videos.

I abolutely love my truck.   Because it's exactly what I wanted. Regular cab short bed in white.   It was also the only one at the time within 200 miles of me.   If I wanted a 6.2 in a crew cab (which I didn't because I did want a crew cab) I would have bought myself one 

barrrf Enthusiast

barrrf

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TXGREEK said:


Actually, the 6.2 gives better performance and mpg than the 2014 with crappy 5.3 I had. As a recent DMax owner I was wanting a change from diesel and got talked into a loaded 5.3 saving maybe $3K not buying the 6.2. With the 5.3 I was getting 17-18 mpg on highway and about 10-11 mpg in city and worse was the 4.5 mpg towing a 6K pound Travel Trailer. The new 6.2 is giving me exactly what it says, 14-15 city, 21-22 mpg hwy. Having had literally every truck out there I feel the most important two things owning a truck is capability/power and MPG and the 6.2 is #1, period!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you were only getting 10-11mpg in the city with your '14 5.3 then you had mods done or there was something really wrong. On my '14, prior to the level and heavy ass BFGs, I was getting 17-18 around town and up to 25mpg on road trips that didnt involve the freeway (so set cruise at 61mph and drive).

All things being equal, physics says the 6.2 cannot get better mileage than the 5.3.

TXGREEK Senior Enthusiast

TXGREEK

Posted
Posted
If you were only getting 10-11mpg in the city with your '14 5.3 then you had mods done or there was something really wrong. On my '14, prior to the level and heavy ass BFGs, I was getting 17-18 around town and up to 25mpg on road trips that didnt involve the freeway (so set cruise at 61mph and drive).

All things being equal, physics says the 6.2 cannot get better mileage than the 5.3.

Lol, I stated what my truck was giving me in performance and mpg. I buy and get rid of trucks a lot giving me tons of experience with all of them and just so happened to have bought a loaded out Z71 LTZ with a 5.3 with a 4.32 rear end, zero mods, 20” wheels and was a pc of [emoji90]. One of my neighbors has the same 2014 5.3 but with 18’s and complains about the same performance and mpg as I did. Fortunately, Physics has nothing to do with it, there’s no replacement for displacement displacement displacement! You tube it and you’ll see for yourself, TFL trucks the 6.2 is the best all around period! Oooos, Almost forgot, another neighbor of mine has a 2016 Ford FX4 with that little v6 turbo and hates it, turbo lag and has had multiple issues with carbon built up. I didn’t buy a truck to save on gas but it sure feels good after having had all the rest “NOW” I’ve got the best, GMC 6.2! God Bless The United States of America [emoji631]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nasty Senior Enthusiast

Nasty

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TXGREEK said:


Lol, I stated what my truck was giving me in performance and mpg. I buy and get rid of trucks a lot giving me tons of experience with all of them and just so happened to have bought a loaded out Z71 LTZ with a 5.3 with a 4.32 rear end, zero mods, 20” wheels and was a pc of emoji90.png. One of my neighbors has the same 2014 5.3 but with 18’s and complains about the same performance and mpg as I did. Fortunately, Physics has nothing to do with it, there’s no replacement for displacement displacement displacement! You tube it and you’ll see for yourself, TFL trucks the 6.2 is the best all around period! Oooos, Almost forgot, another neighbor of mine has a 2016 Ford FX4 with that little v6 turbo and hates it, turbo lag and has had multiple issues with carbon built up. I didn’t buy a truck to save on gas but it sure feels good after having had all the rest “NOW” I’ve got the best, GMC 6.2! God Bless The United States of America emoji631.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with this  the new ford turbos have so much lag and sound like interior pieces are loose

'17 Sierra Enthusiast

'17 Sierra

Posted
Posted

Someone mentioned the 6.2 is a "real truck engine" (as compared to the 5.3). Isn't a "real truck" 3/4 ton and over...with a Duramax? This thread has really gone south. Personally, I've always been one to get the most cubic inches that was offered but in a 1/2 ton truck and not towing...not really needed. The 5.3 is fine. Now if I saw a truck like mine on the lot with a 6.2 and without the sunroof, I'd pay the additional 1K for the 6.2 since I didn't really want the sunroof but would I pay the 2K more for the 6.2. Probably not. I drove both too before I drove off the lot. My last new vehicle was a C6Z06. That car is fast but I really think it's more about bragging rights in a truck more than it is anything else.

TXGREEK Senior Enthusiast

TXGREEK

Posted
Posted
Someone mentioned the 6.2 is a "real truck engine" (as compared to the 5.3). Isn't a "real truck" 3/4 ton and over...with a Duramax? This thread has really gone south. Personally, I've always been one to get the most cubic inches that was offered but in a 1/2 ton truck and not towing...not really needed. The 5.3 is fine. Now if I saw a truck like mine on the lot with a 6.2 and without the sunroof, I'd pay the additional 1K for the 6.2 since I didn't really want the sunroof but would I pay the 2K more for the 6.2. Probably not. I drove both too before I drove off the lot. My last new vehicle was a C6Z06. That car is fast but I really think it's more about bragging rights in a truck more than it is anything else.

All the engines will do under the 6.2. My brother loved mine so much he went out and test drove the 5.3 just to make sure and decided on the 6.2, you just can’t find them anywhere, checked 300 miles and decided to special order his. Good luck all, be safe!
2014KL Enthusiast

2014KL

Posted
Posted

The 5.3 is a good engine.   My last truck was a 2014 ltz 4wd double cab 5.3 with 3.42 gears with intake exhaust and tune.  My current truck is a bone stock 2014 slt 4wd crew cab 6.2 with 3.42 gears.    Hands down my current truck is quicker and tows better.  The extra 65hp/77tq makes a difference and yes it is noticeable in a 5k lb plus truck.

SILVER SLED Senior Enthusiast

SILVER SLED

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't understand why people think a 5.3 truck is slow or underpowered.  I think on paper the 5.3 is the quickest 1500 except for a Ford turbo V6 and a 6.2 GM, and maybe now the new for 18 390ish 5.0 Ford. Trucks are trucks, they are slow.  A 5.3 truck is an above average performing truck compared to other trucks. I got upper 20, best being 28.1 mpg when driving back and fourth to the lake.  It's A 55 mile trip stopping at least 5 times and loaded with coolers and lake stuff.  I think there are some people on here that have there head up there ass when it comes to what a truck is and how they should perform, and have there head up there ass when it comes to what a good running vehicle is these days...a 6.2 truck is a relatively slow vehicle.  It's quick for a truck, but not compared to other vehicles.  I think this 6.2 truck of mine may be a little more fun to drive than the 5.3,, but I would not consider it a fast vehicle.  Bragging about how fast a 6.2 truck is, is like bragging about being the smartest retard in school.  Rant over. 

TXGREEK Senior Enthusiast

TXGREEK

Posted
Posted

Today, for grins, I took my stock 6.2 out at Home Depot today and while coming to a stop light a retard in a Chevy 2015 style jumped in front of the car next to me and when the light turned green he punched it with a small screech as I slowly punched it as to not burn up my tires and completely blew him away, guess he had his head so far up his retard A$$ he didn’t realize he was messing with the big boy 6.2. Btw, The Fast Lane Trucks made a video on you tube where Chevy 6.2 went up against the eco boost and beat the eco boost on towing too, wow! Trucks are trucks but you just gotta love that there’s no substitute for displacement displacement displacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...