Jump to content

Official 2019 5.3L & 6.2L V8 Engine Specs Are Here

Zane

Recommended Posts

Zane Senior Enthusiast

Zane

Posted
Posted

2019-5-3L-V8-DFM-VVT-DI L84-SLV-RF-S-NC-HiRLev12.jpg

Zane Merva

Executive Editor, GM-Trucks.com

5/18/2018

 

As it turns out, the leaked figures for the 2019 5.3L and 6.2L V8 engines wasn't far off. That's the good news. The bad news is the SAE certified horsepower and torque will match 2018's numbers exactly. 

 

But that doesn't mean the 2018 and 2019 engines are the same. Instead of the 2018's Active Fuel Management, which allows the engine to switch between four and eight cylinders, the 2019 V8's have Dynamic Fuel Management. DFM can adjust the firing cylinders in up to 17 different ways. Theoretically, that should mean improved fuel economy at the same power output. Chevrolet hasn't released any fuel economy numbers yet, so that is just a theory. 

 

But if you really like the 2018 5.3L V8 and want to buy it again with the 2019 Silverado, fear not. You can option it with a six-speed transmission for WT, LT, and LT Trail Boss trims. 

 

--------------------

2019 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 5.3L WITH DYNAMIC FUEL MANAGEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

Type:

5.3L V-8 VVT DI with Dynamic Fuel Management

Bore & Stroke (in / mm):

3.78 x 3.62 / 96 x 92

Block Material:

Cast aluminum

Cylinder Head Material:

Cast aluminum

Compression Ratio:

11.0:1

Firing Order:

1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3

Valvetrain:

Overhead valve, two valves per cylinder, variable valve timing

Fuel Delivery:

Direct high-pressure fuel injection with Dynamic Fuel Management

Ignition System:

High-energy coil-on-plug

Horsepower
(hp / kW @ rpm):

355 / 265 @ 5600 rpm (SAE certified)

Torque                          (lb.-ft. / Nm @ rpm):

383 / 519 @ 4100 rpm (SAE certified)

Manufacturing Location

Tonawanda Engine Plant, Buffalo, N.Y.

 

2019 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 6.2L WITH DYNAMIC FUEL MANAGEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

Type:

6.2L V-8 VVT DI with Dynamic Fuel Management

Bore & Stroke (in / mm):

4.06 x 3.62 / 103.25 x 92

Block Material:

Cast aluminum

Cylinder Head Material:

Cast aluminum

Compression Ratio:

11.5:1

Firing Order:

1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3

Valvetrain:

Overhead valve, two valves per cylinder, variable valve timing

Fuel Delivery:

Direct high-pressure fuel injection with Dynamic Fuel Management

Ignition System:

High-energy coil-on-plug

Horsepower
(hp / kW @ rpm):

420 / 313 @ 5600 rpm (SAE certified)

Torque                          (lb.-ft. / Nm @ rpm):

460 / 621 @ 4100 rpm (SAE certified)

Manufacturing Location

Tonawanda, N.Y.

magnum74 Enthusiast

magnum74

Posted
Posted

With the two entry levels, 3.0 Duramax and two V8's #6 has to be a premium offering. I also don't think the current output 6.2/10-speed on a platform that weighs 400-500lbs less will be anything of a disappointment but it obviously effects the market that looks at numbers. If GM wants to capitalize on this group they'll need to make one more splash even if it's limited to the very high end (Denali, AT4 maybe High Country) similar to what Ford is doing with the Raptor 3.5.

Payton34 Enthusiast

Payton34

Posted
Posted

How about a final engine option of the LT4 supercharged 650hp in the higher trim trucks (Denali & AT4).  Also build a Silverado SS and GMC sport truck with this motor.  No truck brand is offering a true performance sport truck any longer.  I would never own a 2wd lowered truck but I am sure there would be a market for it.

magnum74 Enthusiast

magnum74

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Payton34 said:

How about a final engine option of the LT4 supercharged 650hp in the higher trim trucks (Denali & AT4).  Also build a Silverado SS and GMC sport truck with this motor.  No truck brand is offering a true performance sport truck any longer.  I would never own a 2wd lowered truck but I am sure there would be a market for it.

Yup, and it's not like GM isn't experienced with supercharging the 6.2's already. Almost seems natural to offer a version in the full size truck and SUV models. 

Vicarod Enthusiast

Vicarod

Posted
Posted

Sadly, it looks as if the 6th engine option will be the 2018 5.3 V8 with AFM and 6spd transmission.

 

 

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted

Anyone else pick out the visual differences?  LT5 style valve cover covers, 2 belts instead of 3 belts, no more vacuum pump, and the water pump is now centered instead of offset.  Where the water pump was appears to be an idler pulley?  I'm guessing they may have gone to an electric vacuum pump like Corvette has. 

Chainesaw Enthusiast

Chainesaw

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Payton34 said:

How about a final engine option of the LT4 supercharged 650hp in the higher trim trucks (Denali & AT4).  Also build a Silverado SS and GMC sport truck with this motor.  No truck brand is offering a true performance sport truck any longer.  I would never own a 2wd lowered truck but I am sure there would be a market for it.

I wish they would - that's the truck I WANT - but no one is offering anything like it.. I was really hoping this year would be the year.... guess I'm keeping my '15 6.2L  - Don't _love_ the new look and with the same HP rating, there really is no reason to trade up. 

gone_fishing Enthusiast

gone_fishing

Posted
Posted
On 5/18/2018 at 12:16 PM, newdude said:

Anyone else pick out the visual differences?  LT5 style valve cover covers, 2 belts instead of 3 belts, no more vacuum pump, and the water pump is now centered instead of offset.  Where the water pump was appears to be an idler pulley?  I'm guessing they may have gone to an electric vacuum pump like Corvette has. 

Don't see a belt tensioner either. Also looks like the moved the dipstick to the passenger side and made oil fill tube taller. Oil pan also looks a little different. Appears to be a single piece of aluminum vs two piece aluminum with steel lower pan on the L83. Something different with the driver side valve cover breather hose too. Has a hose going back somewhere behind the intake manifold (out of view).

Nargg Enthusiast

Nargg

Posted
Posted

The numbers game always cracks me up.  Especially with the public at large, who really doesn't understand physics that much.  GM is known for being conservative in their ratings, for very good reasons.  And, it shows with their trucks being the longest lasting on the road.  Not to mention the most civilized in driving dynamics.  Also, a lot of people seem to forget that the aftermarket business is not slowing down.  If you really are that full of testosterone, and need more there is a way to get there, no matter what make or model of truck you own.

 

Now, down to real discussion on what I feel we should expect.  I'm still very impressed with the MPG from my 2015 5.3 L Chevy.  My average from the truck I owned before, a 2011, is 3 MPG higher.  That's amazing.  If the new fuel management systems GM is putting in place gain another one or two, that's a gold mine in gas savings for me.  I'm looking forward to it.

The MPG wars do, I feel, have one negative.  It seems to me that towing should be going up more for all major truck makers.  It's moving up for sure, but doesn't quite seem to keep pace with the HP and Torque increases.  That's likely due to the push for MPG, which is not bad.  But just interesting to me to watch the progression of modern trucks.  

canucktravellers New Member

canucktravellers

Posted
Posted

I would hope that the Allison Tranny is an option in these vehicles as we have a 1500 LTZ 2017 6.2Liter E/W the 8 speed Tranny, this transmission is horrible, it agressibly shifts with a big thud and the dealer(s) can find "no problem"  if the Duramax would have been available we would gladly have paid the premium. We had previously the 2500HD with the  6.6 Duramax/Allison before and it was a dream, hated to trade it but was going lighter in an RV so didnt need all that torque.

Colossus Senior Enthusiast

Colossus

Posted
Posted

No the allison won't be an option.  If it were, you'd hear all about it.  It's a darn shame.  The Allison 1000 has proven itself over the years as being bulletproof as long as you do the recommended maintenance and don't run performance tunes on them. 

wrath Enthusiast

wrath

Posted
Posted

I have a 2015 L86/6.2L 8L90e NHT truck.

 

Before that I had a 2009 L76/6.0L 6L80e Z60 truck.  I liked that truck a lot.  Took a couple flashes before they got the 6L80e right.  Waited and waited for them to do the L86/8L90e.

 

The 8L90e is OK.  Not great.  I have had the converter and radiator replaced just like a lot of other people.  TCC still slips once in a while.  Have had the ECM and BCM flashed many times and it always has the latest tune from GM.

 

It has slowly lost gas mileage.  It's down to averaging in the 17s on the same commute I used to get 21-22.  Every new operating system the gas mileage goes down.  I suspect a lot of it is an attempt to fix various drive-ability issues with the 8L90e (there are a lot of them).

 

It now has a loud bang when you roll from coast to accelerate quickly... it's way more than drivetrain slop.  The transmission never really seems to know what to do.  The latest tune partially fixed the garage park/garage flare issue (not shifting, waiting a while for the pump to build pressure) and the TCC slip issue.

 

I have hptuners so I watch it all the time.  I would say the first 15,000 miles (before the TCC ate itself and started slipping 50+rpm when locked) the truck was great.  Good gas mileage, excellent driving characteristics, etc.

 

I use both trucks about the same.  Same tires (Duratrac), same configuration (extended cab, short box, 4wd), same accessories (hellwig rear sway bar, firestone bags).  Tow the same boring stuff with it.

 

Since the 6.2L didn't get any refresh on its specifications and I don't trust the 10L90e after the 8L90e problems I've had... I'll be waiting to replace my truck.  Plus the lack of pause on the radio/XM on the 2016+ trucks is stupid.

shift_grind Enthusiast

shift_grind

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, wrath said:

I have a 2015 L86/6.2L 8L90e NHT truck.

 

Before that I had a 2009 L76/6.0L 6L80e Z60 truck.  I liked that truck a lot.  Took a couple flashes before they got the 6L80e right.  Waited and waited for them to do the L86/8L90e.

 

The 8L90e is OK.  Not great.  I have had the converter and radiator replaced just like a lot of other people.  TCC still slips once in a while.  Have had the ECM and BCM flashed many times and it always has the latest tune from GM.

 

It has slowly lost gas mileage.  It's down to averaging in the 17s on the same commute I used to get 21-22.  Every new operating system the gas mileage goes down.  I suspect a lot of it is an attempt to fix various drive-ability issues with the 8L90e (there are a lot of them).

 

It now has a loud bang when you roll from coast to accelerate quickly... it's way more than drivetrain slop.  The transmission never really seems to know what to do.  The latest tune partially fixed the garage park/garage flare issue (not shifting, waiting a while for the pump to build pressure) and the TCC slip issue.

 

I have hptuners so I watch it all the time.  I would say the first 15,000 miles (before the TCC ate itself and started slipping 50+rpm when locked) the truck was great.  Good gas mileage, excellent driving characteristics, etc.

 

I use both trucks about the same.  Same tires (Duratrac), same configuration (extended cab, short box, 4wd), same accessories (hellwig rear sway bar, firestone bags).  Tow the same boring stuff with it.

 

Since the 6.2L didn't get any refresh on its specifications and I don't trust the 10L90e after the 8L90e problems I've had... I'll be waiting to replace my truck.  Plus the lack of pause on the radio/XM on the 2016+ trucks is stupid.

Sorry about your luck.  It will be interesting to see what 2019 owners say about the 8 and 10 speed.  Perhaps they identified the issues with the 8 speed and the 8 speed will be great in the 19's.

kilowhiskey Enthusiast

kilowhiskey

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, shift_grind said:

Sorry about your luck.  It will be interesting to see what 2019 owners say about the 8 and 10 speed.  Perhaps they identified the issues with the 8 speed and the 8 speed will be great in the 19's.

I think the 10 spd will be amazing. They co developed it with ford. 

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...