Jump to content

5.3L vs 6.2L V8

Ferrari Eater
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jonofmac Enthusiast

Jonofmac

Posted
Posted
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

  • 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

TRKLGND Enthusiast

TRKLGND

Posted
Posted
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 Enthusiast

TRKLGND

Posted
Posted
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). 

  • Like 1
ullose272 Enthusiast

ullose272

Posted
Posted
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

  • Like 1
spizike9 Enthusiast

spizike9

Posted
Posted
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 Enthusiast

ullose272

Posted
Posted
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 Senior Enthusiast

Cpl_Punishment

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by Cpl_Punishment
  • Like 2
Jonofmac Enthusiast

Jonofmac

Posted
Posted
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 Enthusiast

TRKLGND

Posted
Posted
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 Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by newdude
TRKLGND Enthusiast

TRKLGND

Posted
Posted
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 Enthusiast

ullose272

Posted
Posted
 
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 Enthusiast

TRKLGND

Posted
Posted
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 Enthusiast

Jonofmac

Posted
Posted
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

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

    • Chuck FB
      Fluid Change Questions

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      There would be one way of determining the quality of the factory oil although probably more than a typical oil lab test, and that would be to draw out some oil from a new truck and send a sample to a lab that could do a more elaborate test of the oil. The issue with too little oil in the diff may not be the lack of lubrication of the diff bearings and gears themselves ( although a lack of oil volume for cooling ) but the wheel bearings because at some point the oil would be too low to properly get onto the spinning axle or fed along the axle tube. That was the claim by the local dealer from a couple of trucks in recent years that had the wheel bearings fail and they figured from lack of sufficient oil due to a severe underfilled diff and some of the bearing material made its way to the diff and it got damaged as well so the axle housings were just replaced on warranty. But your right that if the diff is over filled by whatever margin that it causes more churning of the oil than is desirable and that is no good either and can cause a pinion seal to leak. Also old oil I believe can tend to loose some of its properties like antifoaming and another good reason to change the diff oil every so often. 
    • Z45
      Fluid Change Questions

      By Z45 · Posted

      I would be surprised if the diff's were not filled (with the cheapest gear lube) at the axle factory before being shipped to GM.  If you ever watched them building trucks they install the axles and all suspension parts with the frame upside down and then turn it over before its time to install the engine.     Too much gear lube in a axle can be worse than not enough especially with a lower quality GL where is get whipped up with entrained air (foam)  weakening its ability to lubricate.        
    • MORSNO
      Oil Consumption

      By MORSNO · Posted

      This is the 6.6 gasser section of the forum, you should either delete or modify your previous post as it is misleading for anyone looking for factual information on their 6.6 gas engine.
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      Well....I've done my first intake gasket. Probably wrong, but...we'll see?   Ultra black on the china walls and 1/4" up onto the sides of the intake gaskets. Permatex High Tack (couldn't find Gaskachinch) on the head side of the intake gasket. I read wrong and it says you're supposed to put it on the mating surface of the head, not the gasket. Hoping it's like a PB&J sandwich where it doesn't matter what side the PB goes on so long as there's jelly. That crap is messy/sticky and I got a dab or two on the intake port openings, tried to wipe it off. Hopefully it won't be a big deal and will only aid in sealing.   Per instructions I left the intake (top side) of the gasket dry except for a light smear of RTV around the coolant ports. Wiggling the intake in there was a bear but I had help to free me of surrounding wiring/stuff but I was basically able to set it straight down lined up with the bolt holes.   I did not think to wait until the RTV skinned over but there probably was 5-10 minutes while it sat before installing the intake.   Bolts finger tight first. Then, followed the Chilton's manual pattern to snug them to 15 lb-ft.   Waited a little over an hour, and then did the final torque in sequence again to 35 lb-ft.   Yesterday I replaced the fuel pressure regulator and got my new "nut and bolt kit" (fuel lines) installed. Damn GM used security torx on the spider, which I don't have, so I got scammed at the local HW store for an off-brand security Torx bit set.   The new driver's door mirror arrived yesterday, so, there's a chance this thing could be running and road legal tomorrow? I don't want to get my hopes up.   This will be my first time stabbing a distributor, too. Although, lucky me, someone else marked the old distributor for removal previously, I did see that. (Someone's been here before!!). Engine is still at TDC so it *should* be just a matter of transferring the mark to the new dizzy and rotating it into place.
    • KARNUT
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By KARNUT · Posted

      He has his dad’s newer truck he’s put away. He has several old cars he rotates between him and his family. I’ve seen a restored square body and a SS Chevy truck he’s sometimes drives. He did raffle off a new suburban recently. As much as he is watched if he drove new stuff as a rule we’d know it. It would be fine by me. I don’t care what people prefer. I got one more new one in me. I’d rather my wife get one. I can’t get her out of the Genesis. Don’t tell anyone. I want her to get an electric truck. I want to put a generator in the back. Just because. She hasn’t bit yet.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...