Jump to content

5.3L vs 6.2L V8

Ferrari Eater
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mikedfw Enthusiast

Mikedfw

Posted
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
  • Replies 308
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Jonofmac
Jonofmac

You appear to be one of those people that enjoys talking down to every option that isn't what you have. Nice. 1) a "chipped" 5.3 in 2018 alone gets you 385/413 HP/tq vs the stock 6.2 420/460 HP/tq.

jlong1984
jlong1984

The 5.3 has more than enough power and torque for my needs. I didn't even consider the 6.2 when making my purchase. 

Ferrari Eater
Ferrari Eater

I never imagined that after asking if the benefits of one engine outweigh the other, that people would be yelling at each other about piezoelectric knock sensors.

Posted Images

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
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:

 

 

 

 

the wanderer Enthusiast

the wanderer

Posted
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
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
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
Slizzo Enthusiast

Slizzo

Posted
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
Mikedfw Enthusiast

Mikedfw

Posted
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

Ferrari Eater Enthusiast

Ferrari Eater

Posted
  • Author
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. 

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
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
Ferrari Eater Enthusiast

Ferrari Eater

Posted
  • Author
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? 

the wanderer Enthusiast

the wanderer

Posted
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
Ferrari Eater Enthusiast

Ferrari Eater

Posted
  • Author
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.

JimCost2014 Senior Enthusiast

JimCost2014

Posted
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
Slizzo Enthusiast

Slizzo

Posted
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
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
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
Mikedfw Enthusiast

Mikedfw

Posted
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
 Share
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...