Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This thread continues to amaze. We've got philosophers, trolls, people talking about crystals, I think I've seen some jokes (or maybe not joking) about people compensating for their body parts and people that cant seem to agree on the definition of the word "better".

This is definitely one of the most entertaining threads I've seen on this site.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Posted
21 hours ago, superhighsierra said:

 

Judging by the guys in this thread, you have to have one of these to drive a 6.2...

 

spacer.png

 

at the end of the day its 65 horsepower, you have to put premium in it and it doesn't necessarily get up quicker. 

 

If you want a sporty engine (with an actual noticeable difference) look at the Ram Hemi 5.7. But then you would own a Ram/Dodge/Chrysler. I couldn't bring myself to go that route as they are also ugly AF and look like a Walmart AD on the interior.  I test drove almost every half ton that they make and the difference b/w the 5.3 and 6.2 is negligible. Don't let the fruitcakes in this thread with buyers insecurities/remorse/defense mechanisms/tiny penis syndrome convince you otherwise. Drive them both and see for yourself...

Lol spoken like someone who wanted a 6.2 but couldn’t get one and now needs to insult the people who have one by saying they have small penis ? Man that’s original! And no you don’t have to put premium in it , and it’s still quicker then the 5.7 Hemi. And gas mileage vs the 5.3 is very small difference  But whatever makes you sleep at night and whatever you sell yourself is cool. 

  • Like 2
Posted
This thread continues to amaze. We've got philosophers, trolls, people talking about crystals, I think I've seen some jokes (or maybe not joking) about people compensating for their body parts and people that cant seem to agree on the definition of the word "better".

This is definitely one of the most entertaining threads I've seen on this site.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk



That’s cause on the Internet, everyone is an expert without even having any personal experiences. You think it’s entertaining in here, you should visit a couple of the other sites, even the moderators are cursing and using foul language.


Sent from Above
Posted
Lol spoken like someone who wanted a 6.2 but couldn’t get one and now needs to insult the people who have one by saying they have small penis ? Man that’s original! And no you don’t have to put premium in it , and it’s still quicker then the 5.7 Hemi. And gas mileage vs the 5.3 is very small difference  But whatever makes you sleep at night and whatever you sell yourself is cool. 

Reminds me one day years ago, late eights I was filling up my twin turbo slant nose at a gas station when I noticed some guy staring at me while he was putting gas in his car. His girlfriend was looking at me and he immediately in a Jealous outburst started raising his voice at her then looked at me and said “you think you’re hot ******” “my mustang can beat your car any day of the week”. I finished up, drove away. Today’s new corvette does 0-60 less than 3 seconds, it was the same for me and I guess being able to buy something I want makes me an AHole or trying to compensate for something lol.

 

Funny thing is, seems to me those that insult others for having more must mean they’re trying to compensate for something else, jealously!

 

 

Sent from Above

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, f8l vnm said:

Lol spoken like someone who wanted a 6.2 but couldn’t get one and now needs to insult the people who have one by saying they have small penis ? Man that’s original! And no you don’t have to put premium in it , and it’s still quicker then the 5.7 Hemi. And gas mileage vs the 5.3 is very small difference  But whatever makes you sleep at night and whatever you sell yourself is cool. 

 

Good one. Nobody ever said anything about gas mileage. It's a truck, only a lame would care about gas mileage. 

 

Not quicker than a 5.7 Hemi. Not close. Massive discernible difference in throttle response off the line, in part because the Ram is the smaller lighter truck as well. 

 

The small penis reference was in respect to all the losers on here who think there 65hp that they have to put premium in (despite anything you say) and there is literally no discernible difference in (especially b/w the 10 speed 5.3), coming on here rubbing each other off for no good reason. 

 

That is all. If you can't see it not sure what to tell you. As I said I think in my first post,  if all else was equal I'd get the 6.2, however the difference is hardly even noticeable in normal driving conditions. Have a nice day and enjoy that "massive 6.2" LMAO & GTFOH with that square uptight ass mentality... 

 

FWIW I pity all of your wives...

 

Edited by superhighsierra
Posted
7 hours ago, AlaskaErik said:

That's been my experience too.  My 5.3 just didn't cut it in our mountainous terrain.  The 6.2 does a much better job  of towing my travel trailer.  And the Max Trailering package is better suited for towing and gives me extra payload capacity, which I ran out of with my 5.3. 

Doesn't a 5.3 with NHT have more payload than a 6.2 with NHT? 

Posted
8 minutes ago, superhighsierra said:

 

Good one. Nobody ever said anything about gas mileage. It's a truck, only a lame would care about gas mileage. 

 

Not quicker than a 5.7 Hemi. Not close. Massive discernible difference in throttle response off the line, in part because the Ram is the smaller lighter truck as well. 

 

The small penis reference was in respect to all the losers on here who think there 65hp that they have to put premium in (despite anything you say) and there is literally no discernible difference in (especially b/w the 10 speed 5.3), coming on here rubbing each other off for no good reason. 

 

 

 

Hey? When you’re done talking about dicks, can you please review this spec chart from Car & Driver that shows literally everything you said is wrong...

 

https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2019chevroletsilverado1500highcountry-vs-fordf150limited-vs-ram1500limited-finalscoringcompletespecsperformancedata-1545396085.pdf


Hemi, even with E-Torque... 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. Even your 5.3 is quicker than a Hemi, at 6.1 seconds.

 

But the 6.2 with “no discernible difference,” 5.4 seconds...

 

Ram is 600lb heavier and always has been the heaviest truck of the big three.

 

These are simply facts, not anyone’s opinion. 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, OnTheReel said:

Hey? When you’re done talking about dicks, can you please review this spec chart from Car & Driver that shows literally everything you said is wrong...

 

https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2019chevroletsilverado1500highcountry-vs-fordf150limited-vs-ram1500limited-finalscoringcompletespecsperformancedata-1545396085.pdf


Hemi, even with E-Torque... 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. Even your 5.3 is quicker than a Hemi, at 6.1 seconds.

 

But the 6.2 with “no discernible difference,” 5.4 seconds...

 

Ram is 600lb heavier and always has been the heaviest truck of the big three.

 

These are simply facts, not anyone’s opinion. 

 

 

 

Wrong. Dependent on what model is what they weigh, but the V8 GMC's are all over 5,000+. The V8 Ram's are 4,800+ dependent on the trim level. You are cherrypicking stats based on certain trim levels with certain options to fit your argument. #fake news

 

And the 5.7L Ram goes 0-60 in 5.4 (and that stat is a meaningless statistic that only someone who is clueless would value anyways) so once again take your fake stats and stuff them up your... show me some quarter mile stats... show me some one mile stats... it's all going to be negligible because at the end of the day they are all 5,000 lb trucks within 65 HP of each other. Supercharge one and get back to me. Until then you are a massive mark...

 

Here let me cherrypick some BS statistics to fit my argument on an Internet forum for trucks lmao. Maybe you can go over to the thread about guys who are getting 28mpg with their 6.2's and rub one out there. Or maybe you can go jerk it with the AT4 guys who paid top dollar for a $hitty 2" lift because they don't understand manufacturer responsibilities.

 

#thisthreadissad

 

spacer.png

 

 

And I give up, you guys win. I'm sure the girls are getting wet just thinking about riding in one of badass 6.2's. Save some for the rest of us. And don't let any statistics/metrics/facts get in the way of those uninformed opinions. 

Edited by superhighsierra
Posted
35 minutes ago, Cpl_Punishment said:

Doesn't a 5.3 with NHT have more payload than a 6.2 with NHT? 

Payload between the two is more a factor of how the truck is equipped.  My 6.2 NHT has 1910 lbs of payload capacity.  You can probably find some 5.3 NHTs with more and some with less payload capacity.

  • Like 1
Posted

 

8 minutes ago, superhighsierra said:

You are cherrypicking stats based on certain trim levels with certain options to fit your argument. #fake news

 

 

What he's telling you and anyone willing to listen is a Ecotec3 4.3 in the lightest truck (RCSB WT1 2WD trim) will flat out torch a 5.3 in the heaviest versions (CC LTZ 4X4) in simple acceleration. Simple power to weight. That's not fake news. That's physics in action. 

 

The OP opened the door with a question that had no point of reference and refuses to give it one. Is one motor better than the other.?Answer is DEPENDS on application and your definition of better. That door was opened by the OP as well indicating loosely that fuel efficiency as 'likely' part of his requirements. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, TXGREEK said:

For those serious about knowing the specs of each, here are the 2018 GM motor specs

 

https://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/silverado/2018.tab1.html

 

Sent from Above

I don't think at this point TX that anyone, including the OP have any real interest in a actual factual reply. In fact over the last week or so I've noticed that questions in general are not being asked with honest intention. I'm pretty much thinking at this point the if we can't ask in a manor that provides some context and reference that holds the OP accountable then an answer is not intended to do anything but incite and deserves a hard pass. I'm not inclined to believe people. They ask, then attack. Yea....NOT. 

  • Like 2
Posted

 

What he's telling you and anyone willing to listen is a Ecotec3 4.3 in the lightest truck (RCSB WT1 2WD trim) will flat out torch a 5.3 in the heaviest versions (CC LTZ 4X4) in simple acceleration. Simple power to weight. That's not fake news. That's physics in action. 
 
The OP opened the door with a question that had no point of reference and refuses to give it one. Is one motor better than the other.?Answer is DEPENDS on application and your definition of better. That door was opened by the OP as well indicating loosely that fuel efficiency as 'likely' part of his requirements. 
 
 

Didn’t your mother ever tell you never to talk to Trolls! I spoke with one of my old mechanics about the 4.3 and the funny thing is he calls it the little motor that thinks it a 6.2 motor. He also said when compared to the 5.3’s and diesels, they were his favorite at the shop


Sent from Above
  • Like 1
Posted
Wrong. Dependent on what model is what they weigh, but the V8 GMC's are all over 5,000+. The V8 Ram's are 4,800+ dependent on the trim level. You are cherrypicking stats based on certain trim levels with certain options to fit your argument. #fake news
 
And the 5.7L Ram goes 0-60 in 5.4 (and that stat is a meaningless statistic that only someone who is clueless would value anyways) so once again take your fake stats and stuff them up your... show me some quarter mile stats... show me some one mile stats... it's all going to be negligible because at the end of the day they are all 5,000 lb trucks within 65 HP of each other. Supercharge one and get back to me. Until then you are a massive mark...
 
Here let me cherrypick some BS statistics to fit my argument on an Internet forum for trucks lmao. Maybe you can go over to the thread about guys who are getting 28mpg with their 6.2's and rub one out there. Or maybe you can go jerk it with the AT4 guys who paid top dollar for a $hitty 2" lift because they don't understand manufacturer responsibilities.
 
#thisthreadissad
 

giphy.gif

 
 
And I give up, you guys win. I'm sure the girls are getting wet just thinking about riding in one of badass 6.2's. Save some for the rest of us. And don't let any statistics/metrics/facts get in the way of those uninformed opinions. 
You make me wish being stupid was physically painful. Your statistics aren't right and the whole micropenis/compensating joke wasnt even funny 40 years ago when people thought it was original.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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. 
    • 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.  
    • Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • 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.  
    • 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...