Jump to content

5.3L vs 6.2L V8


Recommended Posts

On 9/12/2021 at 3:13 PM, KARNUT said:

I owned one of those 5.3s in 2014 in a GMC. I had the E-85 option. My Texas Edition came with the 345 posi rear. With a tune I stayed with a friends 6.2. Denali. GM could easily have a nice SS 6.2 in an low option truck, even a single cab. Even if they did that I have no interest in any type of cylinder deactivation. I would be more interested in a blown 4 or 6. At least if you were easy on those your less likely to have a failure. Than waiting for a lifter to fail with cylinder deactivation. Too much going on with them for my comfort.

Is it that you are just not comfortable with change in general or is it that these newer 5.3s and 6.2 are having issues with the cylinder deactivation? I know back in 2007 the 5.3 had an issue with oil consumption because of it but has been since resolved as far as I am aware. We have to remember technology matures and as such early innovations tend to have issues and further down the road they get more and more reliable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Thomas Rodriguez said:

Is it that you are just not comfortable with change in general or is it that these newer 5.3s and 6.2 are having issues with the cylinder deactivation? I know back in 2007 the 5.3 had an issue with oil consumption because of it but has been since resolved as far as I am aware. We have to remember technology matures and as such early innovations tend to have issues and further down the road they get more and more reliable. 

No change is fine. I’ve bought first year or new factory products. I had each new arriving diesels, even GMs 5.7 diesel. The 94 Ram redesign. The first year V-10. My favorite Trailblazer SS. No one can hold a candle to the 2000 until the first cylinder deactivation model GM. That’s the main reason I have an 02. I could handle the rattling steering column and bad speedometers gauges of those years. I had five GM trucks and 3 GM cars in that time period. They were treasures. A passenger vehicle, trucks apparently fit that category. Don’t need 8 or 10 speed transmissions or cylinder deactivation engines to get decent fuel mileage. As people are finding out very expensive to repair or rebuild. Cylinder deactivation  is bastardization of a bulletproof engine. I wouldn’t own one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!  What a thread.  I had forgotten how immature and "macho" some of the people are on this site.  I wonder how many of you have truck nuts hanging from the back?

 

If you answered that one engine is better than another, then you don't know what you're talking about.  All of the engines are fine.  Their reliability is basically equal.  They're just suited to different tasks and different people.  Nobody can answer that question for somebody else.  For some people the 4.3L will be the best engine, for others the 6.2L.  It's a simple concept

 

Not one engine can do everything asked of it.  The 6.2L makes gobs of power, but it's expensive to own and operate given the up front cost, premium gas, and crappy fuel economy.  That's not for everybody.  The 4.3L is great on mileage and light truck duty, but wouldn't be a good choice for somebody looking to tow or carry heavy loads regularly.  The 5.3L is a good compromise between the two.  Buy the engine that suites your personal needs.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, KARNUT said:

No change is fine. I’ve bought first year or new factory products. I had each new arriving diesels, even GMs 5.7 diesel. The 94 Ram redesign. The first year V-10. My favorite Trailblazer SS. No one can hold a candle to the 2000 until the first cylinder deactivation model GM. That’s the main reason I have an 02. I could handle the rattling steering column and bad speedometers gauges of those years. I had five GM trucks and 3 GM cars in that time period. They were treasures. A passenger vehicle, trucks apparently fit that category. Don’t need 8 or 10 speed transmissions or cylinder deactivation engines to get decent fuel mileage. As people are finding out very expensive to repair or rebuild. Cylinder deactivation  is bastardization of a bulletproof engine. I wouldn’t own one.

 I have seen plenty of well known bullet proof engines that have taken a dump before 100k, like wise seen plenty of supposedly non bullet proof engines in your eyes (with DoD) that have lasted well past 200k. So you can't make that statement as a fact, that as an assumption based on theory. People read about a handful of issues on a minute amount of vehicles and categorize it as most all having the issue. While I agree I don't let first year new engines or designs scare me (my current 2014 has been fantastic with no issues since I bought it and it hasn't lived an easy life) I would prefer to wait usually the later in the model years to come with more updates, refreshed components or other improvements. Take for example the yamaha 1.8 engines, they has a 2 year span of possible timing chain issues and eventually upgraded the timing chain; I like changes like that or options that are added I can't get like the adaptive cruise on the 2020 trucks not available on the 2019's.

 

I don't let new stuff scare me, they are tested far more thoroughly than in past years with the advancements in design and testing and are known to be much more reliable than past vehicles.  

 

Tyler

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Amcguy1970 said:

 I have seen plenty of well known bullet proof engines that have taken a dump before 100k, like wise seen plenty of supposedly non bullet proof engines in your eyes (with DoD) that have lasted well past 200k. So you can't make that statement as a fact, that as an assumption based on theory. People read about a handful of issues on a minute amount of vehicles and categorize it as most all having the issue. While I agree I don't let first year new engines or designs scare me (my current 2014 has been fantastic with no issues since I bought it and it hasn't lived an easy life) I would prefer to wait usually the later in the model years to come with more updates, refreshed components or other improvements. Take for example the yamaha 1.8 engines, they has a 2 year span of possible timing chain issues and eventually upgraded the timing chain; I like changes like that or options that are added I can't get like the adaptive cruise on the 2020 trucks not available on the 2019's.

 

I don't let new stuff scare me, they are tested far more thoroughly than in past years with the advancements in design and testing and are known to be much more reliable than past vehicles.  

 

Tyler

I doubt the Frankenstein engines will be as reliable as the past 5.3s, too many extra gingerbread components. I’ve owned both. I take a little less fuel mileage ( if that’s even the case) than an engine that sounds like a popcorn fart. GM is on its fourth try with cylinder deactivation. I remember the 8-6-4 in the 80s. Maybe someday. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Amcguy1970 said:

 I have seen plenty of well known bullet proof engines that have taken a dump before 100k, like wise seen plenty of supposedly non bullet proof engines in your eyes (with DoD) that have lasted well past 200k. So you can't make that statement as a fact, that as an assumption based on theory. People read about a handful of issues on a minute amount of vehicles and categorize it as most all having the issue. While I agree I don't let first year new engines or designs scare me (my current 2014 has been fantastic with no issues since I bought it and it hasn't lived an easy life) I would prefer to wait usually the later in the model years to come with more updates, refreshed components or other improvements. Take for example the yamaha 1.8 engines, they has a 2 year span of possible timing chain issues and eventually upgraded the timing chain; I like changes like that or options that are added I can't get like the adaptive cruise on the 2020 trucks not available on the 2019's.

 

I don't let new stuff scare me, they are tested far more thoroughly than in past years with the advancements in design and testing and are known to be much more reliable than past vehicles.  

 

Tyler

For what it’s worth… my car has adaptive cruise and I am always manually adjusting anyway because I got tired of it braking. I want it to anticipate and start coasting rather than braking and I’m not sure any of them do that. If they do then maybe the is the speed differential and the person in front of me is always too great 🤣😂 I dunno 🤷‍♂️ 🤣😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KARNUT said:

I doubt the Frankenstein engines will be as reliable as the past 5.3s, too many extra gingerbread components. I’ve owned both. I take a little less fuel mileage ( if that’s even the case) than an engine that sounds like a popcorn fart. GM is on its fourth try with cylinder deactivation. I remember the 8-6-4 in the 80s. Maybe someday. 

The last Gen did fine after the inaugural year or two. A 2009 was way better to have than a 2007 Avalanche for instance. 2010 5.3 and for sure you were in business for the long haul from what I have experienced and read. 
 

A lot of the time it’s not even the technology. Often the engineers created a great design and the issue was getting someone to manufacture a great part. That can happen on any Gen motor at any time. No matter how simple or complex the motor design is. So if they starts to remanufacture an older Gen of the 5.3 they could end up having a whole heap of problems if one part has a quality control issue. Even if it is the same part that never failed after 500,000 miles on older units.

Edited by Thomas Rodriguez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Thomas Rodriguez said:

The last Gen did fine after the inaugural year or two. A 2009 was way better to have than a 2007 Avalanche for instance. 2010 5.3 and for sure you were in business for the long haul from what I have experienced and read. 
 

A lot of the time it’s not even the technology. Often the engineers created a great design and the issue was getting someone to manufacture a great part. That can happen on any Gen motor at any time. No matter how simple or complex the motor design is. So if they starts to remanufacture an older Gen of the 5.3 they could end up having a whole heap of problems if one part has a quality control issue. Even if it is the same part that never failed after 500,000 miles on older units.

If I was still working I’d be buying one every two years or so. I usually bought extended warranty. The last 20 years from one dealer. They would call me around the two year mark or email with great deals. I only had engine problems one time in 40 years of driving, a V-10. No other problems. My trucks would start in the morning and run all day. Sometimes idle for hours. I don’t believe these new ones could handle that. Jury still out we’ll see. My retirement truck is a peach, probably my last one. Not my last vehicle, just the last truck. I treat it like a classic.

Edited by KARNUT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a 2019 5.3 Denali 4wd, drove an identical truck with a 6.2 the same day and couldn't tell enough difference to justify the price. Almost 3 years later, I can honestly say that I've not had one incident where I needed or even wanted more power than my 5.3 puts out. I have been 100% satisfied with both the power and economy of the 5.3., even when towing my bass boat. Were I doing it over tomorrow, I'd make the same decision.

Edited by Charlie Richardson
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Charlie Richardson said:

Got a 2019 5.3 Denali 4wd, drove an identical truck with a 6.2 the same day and couldn't tell enough difference to justify the price. Almost 3 years later, I can honestly say that I've not had one incident where I needed or even wanted more power than my 5.3 puts out. I have been 100% satisfied with both the power and economy of the 5.3., even when towing my bass boat. Were I doing it over tomorrow, I'd make the same decision.

I’ve found that usually the dealer has only reg gas in the 6.2s which will effect performance. Also depending on the gear ratio between the trucks will make a difference in feel. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2021 at 10:00 PM, KARNUT said:

I’ve found that usually the dealer has only reg gas in the 6.2s which will effect performance. Also depending on the gear ratio between the trucks will make a difference in feel. 

You are probably correct. I doubt the dealer puts premium fuel in vehicles on the lot. That being said, I can find zero fault with the 5.3L and would probably still go with it again. The only thing that might persuade me to change would be the 3.0L Duramax and it'd take at least a couple more years to prove it's dependability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Charlie Richardson said:

You are probably correct. I doubt the dealer puts premium fuel in vehicles on the lot. That being said, I can find zero fault with the 5.3L and would probably still go with it again. The only thing that might persuade me to change would be the 3.0L Duramax and it'd take at least a couple more years to prove it's dependability.

I’ve had a few. If the 6.2 was a stand alone option I would have had one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

had a 2018 Sierra All Terrain 5.3 with the Trifecta tune

and now a 2021 6.2  Trailboss (waiting on range DFM disabler, dont want a pulsar)

 

after the tune on the 5.3 it also recommended premium, 6.2 will run on 87 but the fuel ecoomy on premium pretty much offsets the extra cost on the 6.2 , pay more, go futher on a tank. works out to a couple bucks a tank even on overpriced Canadian gas here in Ontario once you consider the better mileage. and for a few bucks difference, sure you wont notice the slight power loss but id rather not drive my truck around relying on knock sensors to constantly pull timing

 

found the bigger wheels and rims were noticable on the 5.3 where the 6.2 i couldnt tell any difference, certainly more passing power on the 6.2, i dont tow often just put alot of crap in the truck and box for hunting, fishing and cottage trips and a few trips across farm fields to setup treestands etc

 

went 6.2 this time around just because the likes of the ecoboost and ram, and now the Tundra all make alot more HP/TQ than the 5.3, 5.3 just felt sluggish after driving those

 

end of the day buy what you want, i traded my '18 in for a ct5v and it was fast and fun, hard to go back to the 5.3 after that but i missed my truck, although the 5.3 would do everything i needed and more.. i just wanted the power, no need to justify it, if ya want it get it... if ya wana save a few bucks then get the 5.3

 

not sure i could do the 2.7 yet, just dont like turbo gas engines in a truck and those 4 bangers must be strung out to make that kind of torque, crazy power from 2.7 no doubt, would say itll be interesting to see how they are doing in 5 years, i see the 2022 they beefed up the block, but the MPG on them isnt any better than the 5.3

 

 

 

 

Edited by putz173
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Firehawk99 said:

You ain't gonna do this with a 5.3 or 3.0 diesel.  This is from a roll, it lit those Duratracs up through 1st and 2nd gear. The only mods I have are a Corsa cold air intake and the GMPP Borla Touring exhaust.

 

Not only did I do that with my 14 5.3. I can do that with my 02 Avalanche. Most any no weight over the rear tires pickup should be able to do that if so desired, with a little brake TQ. Nice show though. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.