5.3 vs 6.2 drag race

[19AT4]

I've always been curious and I couldn't find any videos with a new gen 5.3 up against a 6.2.  I was a bit surprised to be honest, here's the results.... the density altitude was around 5000ft above sea level, the trucks would probably lose 0.5 sec in the 1/4 at sea level.

 

19 5.3 with the 8 speed, 3.23 gears, 2" level on 22x10's, muffler/res delete

19 6.2 with the 10 speed, 3.23 gears, 2" level on 24x10's, Borla ATAK exhaust with a roto fab intake

 

Draggy GPS performance tester, for anyone that doesn't know they're accurate to within 0.1 sec in the 1/4 mile (Proven) It shows you all the acceleration times, density altitude, slope (-/+1% range, the run becomes invalid if you're out of the range ect.

 

5.3, 15.2@91mph

6.2, 14.8@94mph

 

0-100mph runs the 6.2 was ahead by around 4 truck lengths, after 60mph or so the 5.3 can almost hang with the 6.2.  The 6.2 gets the jump because the first few gears are pretty short.  We did multiple runs with different launch techniques, they both had 2.2-2.3 60' times.  I thought the 6.2 was going to absolutely destroy the 5.3's.  I'd bet if the 5.3 was tuned it would be side by side with the 6.2. 

[wizard4878]

sounds about right to me

[Ryguy]

 

[OnTheReel]

1 hour ago, 19AT4 said:

I've always been curious and I couldn't find any videos with a new gen 5.3 up against a 6.2.  I was a bit surprised to be honest, here's the results.... the density altitude was around 5000ft above sea level, the trucks would probably lose 0.5 sec in the 1/4 at sea level.

 

19 5.3 with the 8 speed, 3.23 gears, 2" level on 22x10's, muffler/res delete

19 6.2 with the 10 speed, 3.23 gears, 2" level on 24x10's, Borla ATAK exhaust with a roto fab intake

 

Draggy GPS performance tester, for anyone that doesn't know they're accurate to within 0.1 sec in the 1/4 mile (Proven) It shows you all the acceleration times, density altitude, slope (-/+1% range, the run becomes invalid if you're out of the range ect.

 

5.3, 15.2@91mph

6.2, 14.8@94mph

 

0-100mph runs the 6.2 was ahead by around 4 truck lengths, after 60mph or so the 5.3 can almost hang with the 6.2.  The 6.2 gets the jump because the first few gears are pretty short.  We did multiple runs with different launch techniques, they both had 2.2-2.3 60' times.  I thought the 6.2 was going to absolutely destroy the 5.3's.  I'd bet if the 5.3 was tuned it would be side by side with the 6.2. 

What were the 0-60 times? That’s the main thing I’ve been measuring with Dragy on my 19 6.2. I have NHT, GM catback & rotofab intake. Best was 5.46s, rest were around 5.5. Best 60’ time was in the same run, 1.98s. 
 

Best launch technique was auto 4x4, sport mode, just mashing the gas. They seem to fall on their face with brake torquing. 

 

 

 

[19AT4]

3 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

What were the 0-60 times? That’s the main thing I’ve been measuring with Dragy on my 19 6.2. I have NHT, GM catback & rotofab intake. Best was 5.46s, rest were around 5.5. Best 60’ time was in the same run, 1.98s. 
 

Best launch technique was auto 4x4, sport mode, just mashing the gas. They seem to fall on their face with brake torquing. 

 

 

 

Those are really impressive times! His was around 7 seconds, I know the density altitude up here is brutal but my 5.3 does it in 7.2 seconds. It doesn’t make much sense to me, he should have destroyed me. We tried launching it like you said and by brake torquing it. There’s a lot of torque management on these GM’s it seems like.  

[CamGTP]

It's not just the density altitude that hurts you, it's those freaking boat anchors you have for rims/tires. The rolling mass that was added to those trucks hurts things more than you think. I think you can pretty much take the 20-30lbs or more added to each corner and multi that by 4.

 

http://hpwizard.com/rotational-inertia.html

 

You could dive off the deep end and read that whole website if you wanted too.

 

 

I have a weird way to get mine off the line that normally works good. If I'm at a stop I will use both my feet on the pedals using the brake just enough to hold the truck still. Then I feather the throttle on slightly to give about 1,000rpm, let off the throttle, release the brake pedal and mash the throttle all in a quick snap like that. If the road it good it will get traction or I have to be at 80% throttle to slow wheel spin for a 1 second. It's easy to upset the truck and just burn rubber all the way through first gear on stock tires.

 

Holding the brake and trying to get up on the stall converter will just make it feel like it bogs down off the line and takes 2 seconds to come back into power.

[Grumpy Bear]

11 hours ago, CamGTP said:

It's not just the density altitude that hurts you, it's those freaking boat anchors you have for rims/tires. The rolling mass that was added to those trucks hurts things more than you think. I think you can pretty much take the 20-30lbs or more added to each corner and multi that by 4.

 

http://hpwizard.com/rotational-inertia.html

 

You could dive off the deep end and read that whole website if you wanted too.

 

 

I have a weird way to get mine off the line that normally works good. If I'm at a stop I will use both my feet on the pedals using the brake just enough to hold the truck still. Then I feather the throttle on slightly to give about 1,000rpm, let off the throttle, release the brake pedal and mash the throttle all in a quick snap like that. If the road it good it will get traction or I have to be at 80% throttle to slow wheel spin for a 1 second. It's easy to upset the truck and just burn rubber all the way through first gear on stock tires.

 

Holding the brake and trying to get up on the stall converter will just make it feel like it bogs down off the line and takes 2 seconds to come back into power.

Worth repeating. 

[f8l vnm]

Agreed with the 24s comments above. Stock vs stock there is about a good 6+ tenths and 6+ mph in the quarter between them. The 5.3 is a good match up vs 2.7 actually. 

[KARNUT]

There’s all kinds of variables that come into play with performance. Much more than engine size. I had two 94 Chevys back in 1995. The HP difference between the two was 10. My 94 Z28 had 275, my 94 Impala had 265. Hot rod tested the Z-28 at 14.7 in the 1/4 mile. I did a second better no mods. My impala hot rod tested at 15 in the 1/4 miles. I did 15.50. with flow master mufflers. I had a big block 74 Impala that ran 14s. I put the engine in a 76 nova, ran mid 13s. I never lost a race with the Impala at the track. It would hook up with great weight transfer. People with faster cars would freak out with my launch and blow their tires up in smoke. I did the same with the nova. Too many variables, the engine is just one.

[truckguy82]

Did the new 5.3 get a lot faster or something?

 

I’ve driven numerous 5.3 and 6.2 loaners and a t1xx 6.2 loaner, and my own k2xx 6.2

 

You guys are smoking crack if you think the 6.2 and 5.3 are remotely close in performance.

 

6.2 feels like you slapped a blower on a 5.3.

[OnTheReel]

The 5.3 did get a little quicker and a lot more responsive vs the K2 version...it really is night and day.
 

But I still wouldn’t expect it to be so close in this instance, especially since both trucks have upsized aftermarket wheels & tires. Unless going from 22x10 to 24x10 will cost you 1+ second to 60???
 

The 5.3 truck doesn’t seem to be affected very much by it’s 22x10s or altitude. It’s numbers are really close to magazine tests, especially when you do give an allowance for these factors. The 6.2 in this test seems to be way off the grid vs mine and other peoples Dragy results.

[f8l vnm]

The 5.3 desperately  needed the 8 speed and the 10 speed even now ups the ante , so its for sure quicker then the K2 models. ...But again 65HP and 77TQ is still a good amount difference with the 5.3 vs 6.2 

[19AT4]

On 5/17/2020 at 9:32 PM, CamGTP said:

It's not just the density altitude that hurts you, it's those freaking boat anchors you have for rims/tires. The rolling mass that was added to those trucks hurts things more than you think. I think you can pretty much take the 20-30lbs or more added to each corner and multi that by 4.

 

http://hpwizard.com/rotational-inertia.html

 

You could dive off the deep end and read that whole website if you wanted too.

 

 

I have a weird way to get mine off the line that normally works good. If I'm at a stop I will use both my feet on the pedals using the brake just enough to hold the truck still. Then I feather the throttle on slightly to give about 1,000rpm, let off the throttle, release the brake pedal and mash the throttle all in a quick snap like that. If the road it good it will get traction or I have to be at 80% throttle to slow wheel spin for a 1 second. It's easy to upset the truck and just burn rubber all the way through first gear on stock tires.

 

Holding the brake and trying to get up on the stall converter will just make it feel like it bogs down off the line and takes 2 seconds to come back into power.

He was on 32" street 6 ply tires and I was on 33.3" 10 ply's so I think the wheel and tire weights were very close, plus I think the AT4's weigh a little more than the denali's? Mine was 2" taller than his If that counts for anything plus I had a 170lb passenger.  I raced my previous truck down the 1/4 with 33's and 35's and there was 3/10th's difference.  

[19AT4]

9 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

The 5.3 did get a little quicker and a lot more responsive vs the K2 version...it really is night and day.
 

But I still wouldn’t expect it to be so close in this instance, especially since both trucks have upsized aftermarket wheels & tires. Unless going from 22x10 to 24x10 will cost you 1+ second to 60???
 

The 5.3 truck doesn’t seem to be affected very much by it’s 22x10s or altitude. It’s numbers are really close to magazine tests, especially when you do give an allowance for these factors. The 6.2 in this test seems to be way off the grid vs mine and other peoples Dragy results.

Yep it didn't make any sense to me, I know they'd both do much better at sea level.  In the cab I could hardly notice a difference in power, he previously had a 8 speed 6.2 and he said the new one is a dog compared to his last one.  I hear the 8 speeds were quicker in the 1/4 mile.  I've yet to find any videos of the new 6.2 in the 13.9 range stock. 

[19AT4]

7 hours ago, f8l vnm said:

The 5.3 desperately  needed the 8 speed and the 10 speed even now ups the ante , so its for sure quicker then the K2 models. ...But again 65HP and 77TQ is still a good amount difference with the 5.3 vs 6.2 

True, they're significantly quicker than the last gen 6 speeds.  I also wonder how the power curve is comparing the 5.3's and 6.2.