Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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. 
 
 
You are way over complicating things. The OP was literally asking about 2 v8 engines that serve the same purpose except 1 is just bigger, more powerful, has better acceleration and passing power, comparable towing and mileage. Better isn't really subjective here. The 6.2 is better, period.

When he asked if the 6.2 is worth the cost to get then that question is subjective.

If he bad been comparing the 6.2 to the diesel, that would need more info, those engines are different and serve different purposes.

None of the insanity in this thread should have happened. Was very entertaining though.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Mikedfw said:

 Better isn't really subjective here. The 6.2 is better, period.

When he asked if the 6.2 is worth the cost to get then that question is subjective.

 

You've made it objective by stipulating why YOU believe it's BETTER. The OP asked if it IS better.

He doesn't seem as convinced but.....

 

If the second part is subjective then the entire question is as they pivot on BETTER

Still FOR HIM left undefined.

 

You don't happen to remember the raging bloody debates over the Ford 385 series motors do you?

Which is better?

429 or the 460?

 

It isn't as simple as ultimate power for everyone.

 

However given your STATED frame of reference if you were the OP

Done and Over

:seeya:

 

 

 

 

Posted
12 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

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. 

 

I know what you're trying to say, but I thought OP's question was quite honest and understandable. He listed both things in his original question that mattered to him; power and mpg. Think it's fair to suggest that "better" in his case is getting more power without sacrificing mpg too much. Yes, that's still not a 100% exact question, but it's also how discussions happen, nothing wrong with that IMO. Just throw out anecdotes and opinions for discussion, as long as they are respectful.

 

Some questions might have a 100% factual response (how much HP in the 6.2), others (like this) might be more anecdotal and opinionated. The opinion questions and answers are fine, as long as it's obvious to everyone with a bit of reading comprehension that they are intended to be interpreted as opinions. Stating an opinion vehemently as a fact, and refusing to listen, that's just being stupid and childish.

 

The micro penis comments aren't helpful, and keep in mind that there are prius, cuv, and 1/4 ton truck owners who will say the same about guys driving the 5.3 or any v8, just to get groceries 99% of the time.


And yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying the most powerful engine you can purchase in your favourite truck.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

The what is better question is easy.  One has to assume the same effort is used to produce each engine. As far a quality. The  economic question. What are you using the truck for? Bang for the buck. If you’re buying a truck that has the 6.2 option remember it requires premium gas. The high value package trucks like the Texas Edition in the SLE model doesn’t offer the 6.2. You can buy them in my area in the low 30K. To get the 6.2 you have to buy options you may not want. Many thousands more to upgrade. I  personally don’t like leather, sun roof, Bose,  self driving anything. I was lucky there was an E-85 option. I was only 20 HP off with my 5.3. And had fuel options. So it’s more than just an engine. The reliability between them probably can’t be measured. 

Edited by KARNUT
  • Like 1
Posted

Lots of keyboard commandos out here posting. Quite interesting to read.

 

I agree with The Wanderers' last post. OP was quite easy to understand in what he wanted to know; just a simple question asking for peoples opinions on what they feel is the better motor and if they felt the money was worth it for that motor.

 

Me? I have the 6.2L motor. I honestly didn't care whether I had the 5.3 or 6.2; all I was after was a crew cab at an acceptable price. My first truck, I never was confused at the fact that it would feel slow compared to my previous few cars (G8, CTS-V Wagon, Chev SS 6M). Honestly all the dick swinging about the power of the trucks is comical when you're talking about how fast a truck is. These aren't Syclones, Typhoons, Lightnings, SRT-10s, etc..

  • Like 3
Posted

You've made it objective by stipulating why YOU believe it's BETTER. The OP asked if it IS better.

He doesn't seem as convinced but.....

 

If the second part is subjective then the entire question is as they pivot on BETTER

Still FOR HIM left undefined.

 

You don't happen to remember the raging bloody debates over the Ford 385 series motors do you?

Which is better?

429 or the 460?

 

It isn't as simple as ultimate power for everyone.

 

However given your STATED frame of reference if you were the OP

Done and Over

:seeya:

 

 

 
 
Sorry that's wrong. If the 6.2 performs equal or better in every metric and fills the same purpose as the 5.3 then it is better. If it were comparing a diesel or turbo or another type of engine designed to do different things then it's different, but in this case, the 6.2 is literally an improved, larger version of the 5.3. It's like comparing an apple to a bigger, juicier apple.

Its value is subjective, completely, but if you just look at the 2 engines side by side and compare them, the 6.2 is better.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Posted
32 minutes ago, Slizzo said:

Lots of keyboard commandos out here posting. Quite interesting to read.

 

I agree with The Wanderers' last post. OP was quite easy to understand in what he wanted to know; just a simple question asking for peoples opinions on what they feel is the better motor and if they felt the money was worth it for that motor.

 

Me? I have the 6.2L motor. I honestly didn't care whether I had the 5.3 or 6.2; all I was after was a crew cab at an acceptable price. My first truck, I never was confused at the fact that it would feel slow compared to my previous few cars (G8, CTS-V Wagon, Chev SS 6M). Honestly all the dick swinging about the power of the trucks is comical when you're talking about how fast a truck is. These aren't Syclones, Typhoons, Lightnings, SRT-10s, etc..

Thank you...this is the format people should use when responding to these opinion questions. There is no definitive answer to my question. Some people want the extra power, some people want the lower price. Hope you guys can get along better. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, Slizzo said:

Lots of keyboard commandos out here posting. Quite interesting to read.

 

I agree with The Wanderers' last post. OP was quite easy to understand in what he wanted to know; just a simple question asking for peoples opinions on what they feel is the better motor and if they felt the money was worth it for that motor.

 

Me? I have the 6.2L motor. I honestly didn't care whether I had the 5.3 or 6.2; all I was after was a crew cab at an acceptable price. My first truck, I never was confused at the fact that it would feel slow compared to my previous few cars (G8, CTS-V Wagon, Chev SS 6M). Honestly all the dick swinging about the power of the trucks is comical when you're talking about how fast a truck is. These aren't Syclones, Typhoons, Lightnings, SRT-10s, etc..

Regular  production trucks today  are just a few tenths slower than limited production trucks you mentioned that anyone can buy. Verses limited and expensive trucks that were limited to a few people who could get access to. Some of those you mentioned were actually slower than today’s production trucks. With just a few mods you could easily have a fully functional mass produced truck that can do every day functions. That would blow the doors off those specialized trucks you mentioned. Some thing I did much cheaper  those specialty trucks cost. I too had many factory hot rods since the 70s. Comparing them today’s vehicles is comical. Especially since they are many specialty vehicles even trucks you can dealer purchase today. The list is endless. It’s harder to find a slow vehicle than a fast one today. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

You've made it objective by stipulating why YOU believe it's BETTER. The OP asked if it IS better.

He doesn't seem as convinced but.....

 

If the second part is subjective then the entire question is as they pivot on BETTER

Still FOR HIM left undefined.

 

You don't happen to remember the raging bloody debates over the Ford 385 series motors do you?

Which is better?

429 or the 460?

 

It isn't as simple as ultimate power for everyone.

 

However given your STATED frame of reference if you were the OP

Done and Over

:seeya:

 

Just wondering, what's with the poem format? 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Ferrari Eater said:

Just wondering, what's with the poem format? 

 

I USED TO GET EMAILS FROM A CUSTOMER WRITTEN OUT LIKE THIS. THE ENTIRE THING. HAVE NO IDEA WHY, HE MUST HAVE JUST LOVED THE TYPOGRAPHY OF AN ALL-CAPS EMAIL!

  • Haha 2
Posted
52 minutes ago, Ferrari Eater said:

You've made it objective by stipulating why YOU believe it's BETTER. The OP asked if it IS better.

He doesn't seem as convinced but.....

The original question was meant to be objective. Sorry if I worded it wrong.

Posted
1 hour ago, the wanderer said:

 

I USED TO GET EMAILS FROM A CUSTOMER WRITTEN OUT LIKE THIS. THE ENTIRE THING. HAVE NO IDEA WHY, HE MUST HAVE JUST LOVED THE TYPOGRAPHY OF AN ALL-CAPS EMAIL!

Think he might have been yelling at you, really driving his point home?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, KARNUT said:

Regular  production trucks today  are just a few tenths slower than limited production trucks you mentioned that anyone can buy. Verses limited and expensive trucks that were limited to a few people who could get access to. Some of those you mentioned were actually slower than today’s production trucks. With just a few mods you could easily have a fully functional mass produced truck that can do every day functions. That would blow the doors off those specialized trucks you mentioned. Some thing I did much cheaper  those specialty trucks cost. I too had many factory hot rods since the 70s. Comparing them today’s vehicles is comical. Especially since they are many specialty vehicles even trucks you can dealer purchase today. The list is endless. It’s harder to find a slow vehicle than a fast one today. 

If that's the only thing you took from my post, you completely missed my point. My point was that these are trucks that are built for utility. Yes, some have power, but they're still 5000LBS vehicles; they'll never be "quick" or "fast" by any standards today when you're speaking about a stock vehicle. It's a race to the bottom when you start talking about how improved vehicles are now compared to before. It's like the people who say "My Civic can beat the ****** out of your Corvette if I spend $10k on it!". Yes, OK. Spend that same amount on a Corvette, net, no one is ahead in a game like that.

  • Like 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Slizzo said:

If that's the only thing you took from my post, you completely missed my point. My point was that these are trucks that are built for utility. Yes, some have power, but they're still 5000LBS vehicles; they'll never be "quick" or "fast" by any standards today when you're speaking about a stock vehicle. It's a race to the bottom when you start talking about how improved vehicles are now compared to before. It's like the people who say "My Civic can beat the ****** out of your Corvette if I spend $10k on it!". Yes, OK. Spend that same amount on a Corvette, net, no one is ahead in a game like that.

Yea, you’re right. Vehicles that run under 6 seconds to 60 are slow. What was I thinking. I’m glad my wife’s full size 4 door is in the low 5s to 60. Incredible how much different that is.

  • Like 1
Posted
The original question was meant to be objective. Sorry if I worded it wrong.
You didnt word it wrong, that's one of the many reasons this thread is so crazy.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

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

    • Because that is IDIOTIC, much like this question. They've already been forced to do it by past administrations - why would you roll that back when it's a GOOD thing?  WHO IS ARGUING FOR LOWER MILEAGE???? 😂  NOBODY IS!!   I'm certainly not! What I want is RELIABLE vehicles again that are worth the price paid!    I don't get your logic here ...   In 2003 I paid $2,200 for our '86 Grand Marquis. It's STILL running and I've never been inside the engine, aside for the timing cover since it was leaking, so I threw a new timing set in since that makes sense. Transmission is ORIGINAL. Electric pump in the gas tank is ORIGINAL. Rear end is ORIGINAL. I'd have to hit my head REAL hard to want to pay $60k or more for a car that still can't come close to the comfort, seating and storage space, or reliability of this one. Nothing is even in the ball park! Hundreds of thousands of brands and models have been built and sent to the crusher while this one keeps on going!   https://postimg.cc/Z9XRrCSg   I've got a whole fleet of cars, motorcycles, and a truck close to this age for summer and winter. No one could pay me enough to buy anything built this century. I have zero use for any it.
    • Since I'm the one who has to fix them when they break, I'll take vehicles over 30 years old all day, EVERY day, over ANY modern crap. Have you attempted any repairs on anything built after 2006? It's a friggin nightmare, and gets worse the newer the model year.    If I had the will or desire, I can make any car of any age outside of a Model T (I don't have THAT much will ...) just as powerful, comfortable, and have all the tech the new stuff does, and get pretty close in mileage, too. I prefer SIMPLICITY. The less the vehicle has, the less to fix WHEN it breaks, not IF.   I'm glad you snot-nosed punks don't like them. More for us, plus that keeps the prices from climbing more than they already have.👍
    • Bringing this thread back on topic. I just noticed the incredible lack of bright chrome across the entire new lineup. Even the Denali has tinted the brightwork in the grille and has none elsewhere. None of them have chrome bumpers. As far as I can tell there aren't even chrome mirror caps. I'm curious if this also happens out back? Are there no chrome rear bumpers either? This is quite the departure for GMC.
    • Bringing this thread back on topic. I just noticed the incredible lack of bright chrome across the entire new lineup. Even the Denali has tinted the brightwork in the grille and has none elsewhere. None of them have chrome bumpers. As far as I can tell there aren't even chrome mirror caps. I'm curious if this also happens out back? Are there no chrome rear bumpers either? This is quite the departure for GMC.
    • Bringing this thread back on topic. I just noticed the incredible lack of bright chrome across the entire new lineup. Even the Denali has tinted the brightwork in the grille and has none elsewhere. None of them have chrome bumpers. As far as I can tell there aren't even chrome mirror caps. I'm curious if this also happens out back? Are there no chrome rear bumpers either? This is quite the departure for GMC.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...