Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

for what it is worth my best 25 mpg is 23.8, best 50 is 21 and my best 400 is 16.7.  I have 3500 miles on the truck.  The best 25 and 50 were both on a recent trip that was mostly country roads with speed limit of 55.  Mix of flat and hills.  Pretty good IMO with the trailboss (2in lift, duratracs and no front chin spoiler).

 

I haven't gotten enough miles to get a good 400 mile trip that didn't have a lot of idling and stop and go.  We went from winter to 90 degrees last week and with C19 I haven't been going anywhere for the previous 10 weeks (work commute is 2 miles).

Posted
14 hours ago, Mikedfw said:

You didnt word it wrong, that's one of the many reasons this thread is so crazy.

That's not the only reason. Some people are trolls, some people respond too much to trolls, and others are just dedicated to this subject. Also, did you mean to say didn't or did?

Posted

There is a great deal more to a motor being Better than the most powerful.

 

GM's very own Gen1 'Mouse' motor for example. 100,000,000 made. Let that number sink in a minute. ONE HUNDRED MILLION!

 

In race trim exceeding 2,000 hp. Well though out tune will net upper mid 20's mpg numbers. Anyone can work on one and you can still buy them new. It will be a while before the Ecotec3 reaches that feat. Many thought the LS would....yea....not

 

The GM 3800 series 3 is a Better Motor than the 6.2 almost equal in accomplishments to the Mouse and more durable. Perhaps GM's finest work...

 

The Gen 1 400 CID was never as good as the 350. Lack of a full water jacket hurt the cooling layout. The 327 would outlast a 350 generally and was more flexible. 

 

Being large and powerful is not a bad thing, it just isn't the only thing.

 

Well unless "most powerful' is  your only criteria. If so buy a Ford 3.5 V6...   450 HP over 500 lb/ft.

 

What do you know about these two motors you haven't read? All you know is they are 'different' in power and 'alike' in construction... sort of.  Ask this question 40 years from now. After you decide what BETTER means. 

  • Like 1
Posted
That's not the only reason. Some people are trolls, some people respond too much to trolls, and others are just dedicated to this subject. Also, did you mean to say didn't or did?
Didnt. I was saying that your post was worded fine, it really isn't confusing at all, but people are making it that way for no apparent reason.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Thanks 1
Posted
There is a great deal more to a motor being Better than the most powerful.
 
GM's very own Gen1 'Mouse' motor for example. 100,000,000 made. Let that number sink in a minute. ONE HUNDRED MILLION!
 
In race trim exceeding 2,000 hp. Well though out tune will net upper mid 20's mpg numbers. Anyone can work on one and you can still buy them new. It will be a while before the Ecotec3 reaches that feat. Many thought the LS would....yea....not
 
The GM 3800 series 3 is a Better Motor than the 6.2 almost equal in accomplishments to the Mouse and more durable. Perhaps GM's finest work...
 
The Gen 1 400 CID was never as good as the 350. Lack of a full water jacket hurt the cooling layout. The 327 would outlast a 350 generally and was more flexible. 
 
Being large and powerful is not a bad thing, it just isn't the only thing.
 
Well unless "most powerful' is  your only criteria. If so buy a Ford 3.5 V6...   450 HP over 500 lb/ft.
 
What do you know about these two motors you haven't read? All you know is they are 'different' in power and 'alike' in construction... sort of.  Ask this question 40 years from now. After you decide what BETTER means. 
Ok, so this post was asking to compare a 5.3 liter v8 made by gm to a 6.2 liter v8 made by gm.

All these other engines are irrelevant, I'm not saying that there are no engines better than the 6.2 and I dont know where you got the idea that is what was being discussed.

Again, comparing these two specific engines, power is the primary difference.

6.2 has more power, better acceleration, better passing power, better at higher altitudes (due to having more available power), basically the same towing and mileage, reliability about the same. How is it not the better engine? What differences are there between these two specific engines that makes you think the 5.3 is better than the 6.2 or at least, what makes you think that being better in this specific scenario is about anything other than power?

Again, if we are talking value or comparing to a diesel engine, then you would have a point, there are other factors involved then, but these are two engines made by the same company for the same purposes, one just does everything the other can do, but with less engine strain, or faster.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

I think the ls7 is the best...

 

 

For those of you that think premium isn't required. I experience audible pinging all the time at part throttle running empty going up hills. I've only ever used shell 91, I'm now trying esso 91; but it did the same thing today. Only option left is 94 octane from different stations. But neither company is top tier and aren't considered to provide quality fuels.

 

I'm also 3000 feet above sea level. Wot no audible knock, just part throttle with slight load. Scares the ****** out of me, because it does not stop unless it downshifts. And honestly, I think the majority of people on hear have no idea what spark knock sounds like and it happens to them all the time.

 

Edited by M1ck3y
Posted
1 hour ago, M1ck3y said:

I think the ls7 is the best...

 

 

For those of you that think premium isn't required. I experience audible pinging all the time at part throttle running empty going up hills. I've only ever used shell 91, I'm now trying esso 91; but it did the same thing today. Only option left is 94 octane from different stations. But neither company is top tier and aren't considered to provide quality fuels.

 

I'm also 3000 feet above sea level. Wot no audible knock, just part throttle with slight load. Scares the ****** out of me, because it does not stop unless it downshifts. And honestly, I think the majority of people on hear have no idea what spark knock sounds like and it happens to them all the time.

 

If you're knocking on 91 octane, you've got other issues going on. Bring it in. I experience 0 knock with 87

Posted
2 hours ago, Mikedfw said:



Again, comparing these two specific engines, power is the primary difference.

 

Your really have not idea what that word means, do you?

 

BETTER  

 

This isn't philosophy; this is English.  Better: Etymology Old English bettra, earlier betera "of superior quality or excellence," from Proto-Germanic *batizo

 

It has nothing to do with POWER. It has to do with excellence and quality. Does that need to be defined as well? 

 

I didn't ask the question, the OP did. His word, not mine. Difference in and of itself does not make a thing better.

 

How does the 6.2 EXCEL in QUALITY compared to the 5.3?

 

It doesn't

 

 

Posted

I can end this argument once and for all. The Silverado is the best looking truck on the market. Having a 5.3 or a 6.2 doesn’t make a difference. You all gonna get massive amounts of pun tang thrown your direction for just its looks. Maybe the 6.2 will get you 2 chicks, maybe?

  • Haha 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Jonofmac said:

If you're knocking on 91 octane, you've got other issues going on. Bring it in. I experience 0 knock with 87

 
 

Nope, nothing else going on. Your not gm. There's a reason they highly recommend 93 octane. I'm happy that your think your a know it all, but you can't account for all variables, regions, and climates. It even states in the manual if you have audible knocking below 93 octane, fill up with 93 as soon as possible. If you have audible knocking on 93, then you have a problem. People can decide for themselves but I will trust gm over a random forum user. 

Posted
10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Your really have not idea what that word means, do you?

 

BETTER  

 

This isn't philosophy; this is English.  Better: Etymology Old English bettra, earlier betera "of superior quality or excellence," from Proto-Germanic *batizo

 

It has nothing to do with POWER. It has to do with excellence and quality. Does that need to be defined as well? 

 

I didn't ask the question, the OP did. His word, not mine. Difference in and of itself does not make a thing better.

 

How does the 6.2 EXCEL in QUALITY compared to the 5.3?

 

It doesn't

 

 

 

You've jumped the rails ages ago. "better" when used in the original question, just refers to "better choice".

 

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/better

 

Either you're just bored and having fun trolling everyone, or you simply are incapable of admitting you messed up and just want to save face by banging out one useless post after another.

 

It's exhausting reading your posts.

  • Like 2
Posted

Your really have not idea what that word means, do you?

 

BETTER  

 

This isn't philosophy; this is English.  Better: Etymology Old English bettra, earlier betera "of superior quality or excellence," from Proto-Germanic *batizo
 
It has nothing to do with POWER. It has to do with excellence and quality. Does that need to be defined as well? 
 
I didn't ask the question, the OP did. His word, not mine. Difference in and of itself does not make a thing better.
 

How does the 6.2 EXCEL in QUALITY compared to the 5.3?

 

It doesn't

 

 

You are really grasping at straws. If you want me to go by your definition I would say the 6.2 is "of superior excellence" for all the reasons listed previously.

You know what people mean when they say "better". You know what the OP meant. If you want me to start using synonyms here so you can feel like you're right, fine. The 6.2 is superior; of superior excellence.

I'm honestly not sure if you are really this dense or just being difficult or maybe you're just trolling and I'm taking the bait.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
Posted

been using a mix of 87 and 91 in every other tank when i fill up 

 

I used it on my 2014 Sierra 6.2 and then my 2016 6.2 and now my 2019 6.2 

 

Zero knock , zero issues . Everyone has their own experience but mine has been 87 works just fine. 

 

Now if i was hot lapping my truck going WOT back to back to back , then maybe 91 would be proffered ( 91 is highest here) 

 

But this is after all a truck . I get on it from time to time and hear zero knock .  What i do hear is a beast of an engine 

Posted
10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Your really have not idea what that word means, do you?

 

BETTER  

 

This isn't philosophy; this is English.  Better: Etymology Old English bettra, earlier betera "of superior quality or excellence," from Proto-Germanic *batizo

 

It has nothing to do with POWER. It has to do with excellence and quality. Does that need to be defined as well? 

 

I didn't ask the question, the OP did. His word, not mine. Difference in and of itself does not make a thing better.

 

How does the 6.2 EXCEL in QUALITY compared to the 5.3?

 

It doesn't

 

 

Might be time to get more sleep :)  

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

Your really have not idea what that word means, do you?

 

BETTER  

 

This isn't philosophy; this is English.  Better: Etymology Old English bettra, earlier betera "of superior quality or excellence," from Proto-Germanic *batizo

 

It has nothing to do with POWER. It has to do with excellence and quality. Does that need to be defined as well? 

 

I didn't ask the question, the OP did. His word, not mine. Difference in and of itself does not make a thing better.

 

How does the 6.2 EXCEL in QUALITY compared to the 5.3?

 

It doesn't

 

 

You've said the same thing with different fonts at least 5 times now. Please give it a rest.

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

    • My 2015 1500 LTZ Silverado suddenly won't go into 4 x 4 low. It will go into 4 x 4 high.
    • Yep, just a quick reference point.    My main point being I’d do a thousand other things before I’d pay 10k for a transmission.    Speaking in ignorance cause I don’t look at these trucks, what is it worth? 20k?
    • I think users are going to want to pick their monitored parameters, which parameters they want to see first.    It should probably start with baseline at a minimum and adjust to learned, but be able to overlay baseline for comparison.   A simple severity level would be able to determine what type of alerting is appropriate or user selectable.    Why not use the OBD port though?   I think a phone connection would be a good idea, push notifications type deal.   Number 1 issue is having data is useless if you don’t know what the data should be under normal conditions. 
    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...