5.3L vs 6.2L V8

[Jonofmac]

Well, tell that to all the real tuners who see consistent knock running premium fuel. Whats you company name? Website? I find it hard to believe this would slip by someone who knows what their doing.

I don't advertise. I decompile the binaries and read the hex to find things HPTuners or EFI live doesn't give you access to. Allows me to do custom things with the ECUs in certain applications. Most "tuners" don't have a firm understanding how a ECU works outside of modifying fuel models and spark. You'd be surprised the amount of crap tuners out there.

Hard to believe what would slip by? The knock logic is not as simple as "OH MAN I SEE KNOCK, PULL TIMING". There are several tables in play that determine fuel quality. Yes, when knock is seen, the PCM reacts fast. There are several things that are taken into consideration while cruising. MAP, rpm, relative combustion volume on the microphone. It uses all these with table look ups to determine how much to shift the knock learn factor, which is a vector to determine how much to blend between the different spark values.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Jonofmac]

https://www.gmc.com/trailering-towing/charts

Heres the gmc trailering brochure if you want to brush up,

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[TRKLGND]

16 hours ago, Jonofmac said:

To answer this most simply, when compared in a GMC Sierra

 

5.3: 355hp/383tq

Towing capacity: 9200 lbs

0-60: ~7.0 seconds

1/4: 14.9@92

 

6.2: 420hp/460tq

Towing capacity: 12,200

0-60: 5.4

1/4 Mi: 13.9@100

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Close but no cigar.

Taken from the 2020 Chevrolet Trailering Guide
The 5.3 / 10 speed / Max Trailering Package / Crew Cab - Short Bed is rated to tow 11,200lb
The 6.2 / 10 speed / Max Trailering Package / Crew Cab - Short Bed is rated to tow 12,000lb

 

The flex fuel compatible 5.3 is rated at 380hp / 416lb ft

 

Car & Driver says the 5.3 they tested did 0-60 in 6.1 seconds.  The 6.2 did it in 5.4 seconds.  The article did not give 1/4 mile times.

[TRKLGND]

12 hours ago, Jav_eee said:

Maybe I should hook up my torque app and check the timing and knock. Others who run 87 on the 6.2 should do the same. This will help end that argument. No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I did that with my 2018 6.2L.  I used 93 octane from a generic station, Shell and Mobil.  The generic 93 pulled tons of timing regardless of load (more at higher loads obviously).  Shell was in the middle and Mobil pulled the least timing.  Equally important, Mobil allowed the most advance which gives you the most hp and tq.  
Admittedly, I did not test 87 octane.  Given my results with cheap 93 there is no way I would run 87 in this truck unless I were in a parade (<5mph - no load whatsoever). 

[ullose272]

Close but no cigar.

Taken from the 2020 Chevrolet Trailering Guide
The 5.3 / 10 speed / Max Trailering Package / Crew Cab - Short Bed is rated to tow 11,200lb
The 6.2 / 10 speed / Max Trailering Package / Crew Cab - Short Bed is rated to tow 12,000lb
 
The flex fuel compatible 5.3 is rated at 380hp / 416lb ft
 
Car & Driver says the 5.3 they tested did 0-60 in 6.1 seconds.  The 6.2 did it in 5.4 seconds.  The article did not give 1/4 mile times.

I dont think those power numbers are correct, maybe running straight E85, but its not what is advertised by GM

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[spizike9]

14 hours ago, superhighsierra said:

Are you familiar with the pyschological defense mechanism called projection? 

 

Trust and believe my bank account looks just fine. Could have left the lot with whatever vehicle I please. Truth be told is I am a frugal MFer, and I chose my truck because I got it for around 30% off MSRP (was a dealer loaner that had 1500 miles already on it) and it had every option that I wanted. My point is that the 6.2 isn't worth more than a couple grand and the placebo effect is much larger than what the Dyno would show, and you are going to have to fill it up with premium for the life of the truck (at 60 cents a gallon that's about $10,000 over 250,000 miles). 65 HP ain't that much. You get several hundred horses from a supercharger lol. And my other point regarding the AT4's is that if you are buying it for off-road capabilities or its suspension, you are clueless. 

 

Again to each his own, I personally could care less what somebody else drives. I just laugh when I see the circle jerk of guys with 6.2's or AT4's. I'd rather spend the money on a supercharger or a nice suspension if I was going that route but again, different strokes for different folks. The Denali's with the power steps, digital gauges and HUD are nicer as they offer tangible differences in the trim level. Just putting the information out there and folks can make their own decision. Don't shoot the messenger...

 

And for the guy who compared these to guys with Yeti coolers. Lots of guys with the 65 quart in this thread. LMAO pretty spot on metaphor. I'm sure half of them paid another couple hundred for the seat cushions and the Yeti brand tie downs. Again, to each his own I guess...

You can get the digital gauges and HUD in the AT4. I’m with you in the suspension isn’t that great on the AT4. You can spend $2500 on a fox or King setup and come out on top. But many people are buying the AT4 because it is essentially a Denali with less chrome. 
 

I drove the 5.3/8 speed AT4 and 6.2/10 speed AT4 back to back (2019 models) and in a daily driving setting you can’t really tell the difference. As soon as you go to step on it and give it some gas the 6.2 makes more power quicker and you can definitely tell. Where I’m at in Utah the highest octane you can get is 91 and it’s only around .20 more than the 87. So for me and my driving habits it will only cost less than $10 a month more in gas to go 6.2. When I finally make my purchase I will go 6.2. I don’t need it but I kinda just want it. 

[ullose272]

I don't advertise. I decompile the binaries and read the hex to find things HPTuners or EFI live doesn't give you access to. Allows me to do custom things with the ECUs in certain applications. Most "tuners" don't have a firm understanding how a ECU works outside of modifying fuel models and spark. You'd be surprised the amount of crap tuners out there.

Hard to believe what would slip by? The knock logic is not as simple as "OH MAN I SEE KNOCK, PULL TIMING". There are several tables in play that determine fuel quality. Yes, when knock is seen, the PCM reacts fast. There are several things that are taken into consideration while cruising. MAP, rpm, relative combustion volume on the microphone. It uses all these with table look ups to determine how much to shift the knock learn factor, which is a vector to determine how much to blend between the different spark values.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Good on you for taking the time to learn how to tune this driver demand operating system, i can tune a gen 3, 4 pretty well but seriously didnt have the time or ambition to learn the Gen V stuff, i did a couple tweaks to my 14 and said forget about it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Cpl_Punishment]

A couple things that I think might have been missed or glossed over: 

-You don't need to get a 6.2 to get the 10 speed any more; the 5.3 is paired with the 10 speed on the Sierra SLE and up as of 2020.

-If I recall correctly from the research I've done, a 5.3 with NHT has higher payload than an equivalently specced 6.2 with NHT due to being lighter. As mentioned above, when towing "heavy" with a halfton, you run out of payload long before you run out of towing capacity. I'm not trying to say that the 5.3 will tow better than the 6.2 but, given that you can't really safely tow more than about 8000 lbs with a halfton, payload may end up being more important than power.

 

When I was shopping K2s, a 6.2 was definitely not on my radar because, aside from the $2500 CAD upcharge and the recommendation to run premium (which I would do because I'm scared of knock and because if I pay for the power, I want all of it all the time), I also would have had to look at an LTZ/ SLT rather than an LT/SLE.

 

On the T1s, it is nice to see the 6.2 in lower trims. If I were buying one, I would probably look at an RST with the 6.2 and NHT and an Elevation with the 5.3, 10 speed and NHT and do an analysis of purchase cost and ownership costs over, say, 10 years, given that premium is 20 cents CAD per litre (80 cents per gallon) more than regular here. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Cpl_Punishment

[Jonofmac]

Close but no cigar.

 

Taken from the 2020 Chevrolet Trailering Guide

The 5.3 / 10 speed / Max Trailering Package / Crew Cab - Short Bed is rated to tow 11,200lb

The 6.2 / 10 speed / Max Trailering Package / Crew Cab - Short Bed is rated to tow 12,000lb

 

The flex fuel compatible 5.3 is rated at 380hp / 416lb ft

 

Car & Driver says the 5.3 they tested did 0-60 in 6.1 seconds.  The 6.2 did it in 5.4 seconds.  The article did not give 1/4 mile times.

Yeah we've confirmed the payload stuff. The website I was using apparently has incorrect info. When you refer to the trailering guide, you can see this difference. Edmunds should update.

 

Your power figures are incorrect. Not sure where you got those 5.3 numbers, but GM does not advertise it that high. However if they did have a unit that was making that power, it would explain the unusually fast 0-60 time for the 5.3 that CnD reported.

 

I found the car and driver article. Something seems off there to me. Must be some difference in vehicles outside of just drivetrain. Every other article and independently posted number I found (CnD was one of the last for me to find, granted, I was looking at Sierra's, not Silverados), and the gap was larger. I saw the numbers I stated. Another comparison between the same truck configuration (crew cab vs crew cab) with engine swaps was at elevation, showed a 0-60 of 7.7 compared to 9.2 sec. I could not find a single reference anywhere else that showed a stock 5.3 setup getting low 6s. Absolute fastest I found was a 6.4, but with a negative DA (equivalent of being below sea level, due to low altitude and cold weather). Not sure what CnD did there, but they got much lower than average 0-60 than everyone else for the 5.3 and a tad slower than average for the 6.2 compared to other outlets.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[TRKLGND]

57 minutes ago, ullose272 said:

I dont think those power numbers are correct, maybe running straight E85, but its not what is advertised by GM

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 

380/416 is when running E85.

[newdude]

25 minutes ago, TRKLGND said:

380/416 is when running E85.

 

Flex fuel is only an option on WT (Silverado) and Base (Sierra) with the 5.3 for 2019+ T1 trucks.  Can't be optioned on any other engine or the other 5.3 with DFM.  So the E85 power is moot unless shopping for a base base truck.   

Edited May 21, 2020 by newdude

[TRKLGND]

5 minutes ago, newdude said:

 

Flex fuel is only an option on WT (Silverado) and Base (Sierra) with the 5.3 for 2019+ T1 trucks.  Can't be optioned on any other engine or the other 5.3 with DFM.  So the E85 power is moot unless shopping for a base base truck.   

The L83 is flex fuel compatible, the L84 is not.  I think the L83 is used in more trims than just the base.  Pretty sure it is in the WT, Custom and Custom Trail Boss.  I could be wrong though.

That doesn't change the fact that the L83 makes more power on E85 than on regular gasoline.  +8%HP and +9%TQ.  Those are pretty good power gains for just a fuel fill-up.  The decrease in mileage due to E85 being less power dense than gasoline is another issue.

[ullose272]

 
Flex fuel is only an option on WT (Silverado) and Base (Sierra) with the 5.3 for 2019+ T1 trucks.  Can't be optioned on any other engine or the other 5.3 with DFM.  So the E85 power is moot unless shopping for a base base truck.   

Plus around here e85 is mostly non existent

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[TRKLGND]

1 minute ago, ullose272 said:

Plus around here e85 is mostly non existent

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 

It's availability does vary.  It is available everywhere here in the mid-west. Corn country!

[Jonofmac]

The L83 is flex fuel compatible, the L84 is not.  I think the L83 is used in more trims than just the base.  Pretty sure it is in the WT, Custom and Custom Trail Boss.  I could be wrong though.
That doesn't change the fact that the L83 makes more power on E85 than on regular gasoline.  +8%HP and +9%TQ.  Those are pretty good power gains for just a fuel fill-up.  The decrease in mileage due to E85 being less power dense than gasoline is another issue.

Indeed is a good bump for just fuel. Nuts! Shame they didn't support flex on the 6.2. Weird thing is it has an ethanol content sensor it looks like (my 6.2 reports having an ethanol sensor and shows the ethanol content). Not sure if it's just fixed in the tune to always report ~10%. I don't have ethanol to try it with.

The 6.2 would definitely benefit from ethanol seeing as it's higher compression than the 5.3 and the 5.3 picks up ~30 HP from ethanol...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk