Jump to content

5.3L vs 6.2L V8


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, ullose272 said:

Plus around here e85 is mostly non existent

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 

We can't even get E15 or E10 where I live.  I've never even seen an E85 pump.  It's all straight undiluted gasoline at every gas station.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jonofmac said:

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
 

My '18 did not have an ethanol sensor. :(  I could have added one fairly easily but the tune would have voided the warranty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AlaskaErik said:

We can't even get E15 or E10 where I live.  I've never even seen an E85 pump.  It's all straight undiluted gasoline at every gas station.

LOL.  We have only one station that has straight gasoline and it is 93 octane.  Like I said, I'm in corn country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting debate! I'm not sure I buy the argument that it's safe to rely on knock sensors though. I drive a 2019 Ram (but love the GM twins too, that's why I'm still here!) and it's the same deal there for the hemi; regular is required, 89 is recommended. And, while running regular, that thing will ping slightly going up a steep hill in my area, even without really working it hard.

 

I put 91 in now because it's so cheap and after a few tanks, pinging completely gone and truck feels more effortless even at low/moderate throttle.

 

So I would hope that the sensors would prevent my engine from ripping apart, but beyond that, without more tuning, definitely wiser to run the recommended 89. I put 91 in because the guy before is doing regular, leftover gas in the hose etc, so by the time I get a tank it's not 91 but probably 89.5 or 90.

 

I grew up in an 1980 caprice wagon with the v8. Same hill, near the end of its life of 17 years, that thing would ping soooo bad unless we ran really high octane. We put in "ultra 94" for a while, pinging went away. Dunno what kind of sensors it had, but that sound is permanently etched in my mind and when I hear it, I hear it, no matter how soft it might be. Bottom line, I run premium despite the manual saying lower octane is acceptable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting debate! I'm not sure I buy the argument that it's safe to rely on knock sensors though. I drive a 2019 Ram (but love the GM twins too, that's why I'm still here!) and it's the same deal there for the hemi; regular is required, 89 is recommended. And, while running regular, that thing will ping slightly going up a steep hill in my area, even without really working it hard.  

I put 91 in now because it's so cheap and after a few tanks, pinging completely gone and truck feels more effortless even at low/moderate throttle.

 

So I would hope that the sensors would prevent my engine from ripping apart, but beyond that, without more tuning, definitely wiser to run the recommended 89. I put 91 in because the guy before is doing regular, leftover gas in the hose etc, so by the time I get a tank it's not 91 but probably 89.5 or 90.

 

I grew up in an 1980 caprice wagon with the v8. Same hill, near the end of its life of 17 years, that thing would ping soooo bad unless we ran really high octane. We put in "ultra 94" for a while, pinging went away. Dunno what kind of sensors it had, but that sound is permanently etched in my mind and when I hear it, I hear it, no matter how soft it might be. Bottom line, I run premium despite the manual saying lower octane is acceptable.

 

Of course it varies per vehicle. Some systems are more advanced than others.  

The AAA research article noted that there was no pinging recorded on any of their test vehicles except for the Audi. They were extremely thorough with all of their testing (it's a 70ish page document). Their data shows that for the 6.2, there was no pinging running 87. The only noticable difference was a fuel mileage decrease on flat roads (due to not using DFM as much on regular) and a 2% power loss above 4k rpm. They tested driving in 0, 2%, 4%, and 6% grades. I don't know if you've been on a 6% grade, but it's pretty significant load on the engine, and no pinging was observed.

 

GM likely recommends premium so that their published mpg average is higher and peak HP is a bit better. This makes their product look more competitive and raises their fleet average mpg (an important metric according to the EPA).

 

It's up to you to run whatever you want. I, personally, run premium. All my other vehicles require premium (not recommended, but required) so I'm used to using it. I used it in my old truck (heads, cammed, stalled, built trans 2500 LQ4 that I built), and this truck gets double the gas mileage, so I don't mind. Maybe when gas gets expensive again, I might consider regular. But right now, who cares. I'm just saying that extensive 3rd party research was done on the 6.2, and it appears that the only ill effect is a reduction in MPG.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must be nice...
Tbh I'd rather have e85. My boosted cars LOOVVEEE it. My NA car is 11.5:1 with port injection and picks up a bit of power too. Gas mileage I don't particularly care about. Everything I own is in the teens or barely hitting 20. my truck is my most efficient vehicle haha

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MaverickZ71 said:

GOTTA USE AMSoil!!!

 

Or NOT!

 

:rollin:

You would think those jokes would get old..

 

But I could not be more wrong!!!!

 

Don't forget the daily OCI with the liquid engine gold!!!!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jonofmac said:

Tbh I'd rather have e85. My boosted cars LOOVVEEE it. My NA car is 11.5:1 with port injection and picks up a bit of power too. Gas mileage I don't particularly care about. Everything I own is in the teens or barely hitting 20. my truck is my most efficient vehicle haha

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

Good points but if we had E0 87 octane here, my dad wouldn't have to pay an extra 80 cents per gallon to put premium in his boat. We also wouldn't need fuel stabilizer for our lawn mowers and other small engines that sit over winter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6.2 is unquestionably more powerful. You will be able to tow more and your acceleration will be better. That being said, GM recommends premium gas for that engine for optimal performance. 

 

All I can say is that I am very happy with my 5.3 + 10 speed combo. Plenty of power. And it doesn't mind regular gas ? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6.2 makes your right foot happy when you find a clear onramp merging into freeway traffic.

 

With gas prices right now, great time to buy, 93 is affordable. 

Edited by JimCost2014
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone show me where GM says 91+ is required for the 6.2 ? 

Recommended ? yes, if your in 100 degree doing back to back pulls , or your pulling a 8k+ trailer . but just dont see the need for higher octane for cool weather or basic street/highway driving. 

This is not an insult to anyone who does use 91+ , just my personal observations . 

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.