What Engine You Chose and why VOTE

[Anon12345]

4 minutes ago, Low Elevation said:

Don’t see a choice for the 2.7t? Would choose that over the sluggish 5.3 all day. 

 

The 5.3 is slightly faster than the 2.7t, you know this, right?

[Low Elevation]

1 minute ago, Anon12345 said:

 

The 5.3 is slightly faster than the 2.7t, you know this, right?

I have driven both and thought the 2.7t to be quicker off the line and better for city driving. I don’t know what the quarter mile numbers are though. 

 

[Anon12345]

Just now, Low Elevation said:

I have driven both and thought the 2.7t to be quicker off the line and better for city driving. I don’t know what the quarter mile numbers are though. 

 

5.3 is .6 of a second faster than the 2.7t in both 1/4 mile and 0 to 60.  The 2.7t is just faster revving because the 5.3 has a cast iron bottom end and the 2.7t has a forged bottom end resulting in faster revs. So while it may seem faster with it climbing rpm's quicker, it really isnt faster, depending on the driver its either the same speed or slightly slower than the 5.3.  5.3 is expected to have a longer lifespan being naturally aspirated, however.  

[TNTSierra]

A 2.7L does 0-60 in 7 secs

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25177218/2019-chevy-silverado-1500-four-cylinder-drive/

 

A 5.3L does 0-60 in 6.4 secs. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.motortrend.com/reviews/2019-chevrolet-silverado-first-test-review/amp/

 

Also car and driver got this 5.3L in 6.1 secs

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25016363/2019-chevy-silverado-1500-by-the-numbers/

 

The little 4 cylinder is a very nice motor but you couldn’t pay me to take it over a 5.3L!  I’m not bashing it at all. Just stating facts the V8 is over a half second quicker. 

 

 

[Anon12345]

9 minutes ago, TNTSilverado said:

A 2.7L does 0-60 in 7 secs

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25177218/2019-chevy-silverado-1500-four-cylinder-drive/

 

A 5.3L does 0-60 in 6.4 secs. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.motortrend.com/reviews/2019-chevrolet-silverado-first-test-review/amp/

 

Also car and driver got this 5.3L in 6.1 secs

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25016363/2019-chevy-silverado-1500-by-the-numbers/

 

The little 4 cylinder is a very nice motor but you couldn’t pay me to take it over a 5.3L!  I’m not bashing it at all. Just stating facts the V8 is over a half second quicker. 

 

 

 

4 bangers NEVER out do a v8.  4 bangers need boost to even get close to a v8 and people love their rice rockets screaming IIIIIIMMMMM GAAAAAAAY with their fart cans. 

[Big_Kahuna]

17 minutes ago, Anon12345 said:

 

 IIIIIIMMMMM GAAAAAAAY with their fart cans. 

IIIMMMMM GAAAAAAAY sound almost just like any ford out there lol 

[Anon12345]

5 minutes ago, Saso said:

IIIMMMMM GAAAAAAAY sound almost just like any ford out there lol 

 

LOL, especially those with the Ecoboost v6 engines. 

[Trevor Towers]

17 hours ago, Low Elevation said:

Don’t see a choice for the 2.7t? Would choose that over the sluggish 5.3 all day. 

The 5.3L is a dinosaur of an engine and it’s really apparent when it’s mated to the 8 speed. Feels like a Ford 4.6L V8 of the early 2000s. 

[TNTSierra]

34 minutes ago, Trevor Towers said:

The 5.3L is a dinosaur of an engine and it’s really apparent when it’s mated to the 8 speed. Feels like a Ford 4.6L V8 of the early 2000s. 

This has to be the "dumbest" statement I have read. I just gave you facts that a 5.3L with an 8 speed posted a 6.1 or 6.4 sec sec zero to sixty time.  A ford truck with the 4.6L ran an upper 8 sec run.  That's over 2.5 secs faster. C'mon man!! 

 

Also, the new 5.3L will hang with muscle cars 20 years ago. That's pretty impressive when you think about a truck that isn't really performance oriented beating a 4.6L Rustang! 

[Grumpy Bear]

Why was the 2.7T not part of the poll? 

[customboss]

17 hours ago, Anon12345 said:

 

4 bangers NEVER out do a v8.  4 bangers need boost to even get close to a v8 and people love their rice rockets screaming IIIIIIMMMMM GAAAAAAAY with their fart cans. 

 OK Zoomer.

[Grumpy Bear]

19 hours ago, Low Elevation said:

the sluggish 5.3 all day

 

So you don't want a pickup.....

 

You want.....

 

https://www.koenigsegg.com/gemera/

[Anon12345]

12 minutes ago, customboss said:

 OK Zoomer.

OK zoomer

[Trevor Towers]

9 hours ago, TNTSilverado said:

This has to be the "dumbest" statement I have read. I just gave you facts that a 5.3L with an 8 speed posted a 6.1 or 6.4 sec sec zero to sixty time.  A ford truck with the 4.6L ran an upper 8 sec run.  That's over 2.5 secs faster. C'mon man!! 

 

Also, the new 5.3L will hang with muscle cars 20 years ago. That's pretty impressive when you think about a truck that isn't really performance oriented beating a 4.6L Rustang! 

Of all the current small block V8s in full size trucks GM has the only engine pushing less than 400 lb-ft of torque. And, no - displacement isn’t an excuse when Ford can squeeze 400 out of the 5.0L. I mean, it’s the only engine in its own lineup with less than 400 lb-ft now that the 2.7 was increased to 430. Instead of redesigning the engine, they just jacked up the compression ratio and shoved more fuel into the cylinders. So here you sit at what is probably the theoretical maximum output for this engine at around 385 lb ft. And using 0-60 times as your benchmark makes zero sense. These are trucks not race cars. Trucks need torque to do truck things. Look, if it’s any consolation, I’m not anti V8 (I own those too), I’m just calling a spade a spade. This engine has not kept up with industry performance standards as well as it could have. The 6.2L on the other hand is a different story.  

[TNTSierra]

7 hours ago, Trevor Towers said:

Of all the current small block V8s in full size trucks GM has the only engine pushing less than 400 lb-ft of torque. And, no - displacement isn’t an excuse when Ford can squeeze 400 out of the 5.0L. I mean, it’s the only engine in its own lineup with less than 400 lb-ft now that the 2.7 was increased to 430. Instead of redesigning the engine, they just jacked up the compression ratio and shoved more fuel into the cylinders. So here you sit at what is probably the theoretical maximum output for this engine at around 385 lb ft. And using 0-60 times as your benchmark makes zero sense. These are trucks not race cars. Trucks need torque to do truck things. Look, if it’s any consolation, I’m not anti V8 (I own those too), I’m just calling a spade a spade. This engine has not kept up with industry performance standards as well as it could have. The 6.2L on the other hand is a different story.  

You stated before the truck was sluggish?? How can a truck be sluggish when it performs was well as a MUSCLE car did 15-20 years ago and it’s not even a performance oriented truck!!!   0-60 times do tell how well a truck performs. Yes, the new 2.7L does offer excellent torque, but it is also down on HP compared to the 5.3L.
 

And the fact you compared it to a Furd 4.6L in a truck was laughable. I could almost get out and run faster than both the 4.6 or boat anchor 5.4L.  Hell my dad still has an 09 F150 with 5.4L and that turd can’t even turn over the tires. 
 

Now, I can totally agree with you that GM FUBR’d the T1 by neglecting their two V8s. Totally frustrating, (especially for me, because I love fast things) there is no reason the 5.3L couldn’t be pushing 380-400 HP with 430ish TQ.  Along with the 6.2L over 450 HP and 500 TQ.   Especially when both V8s get as good and even better than the Ecobust out there by Ford and the new Tundra isn’t passing up any gas stations with their new turbo motor. 
 

What people don’t realize is small displacement motors are great for putzing around town, but the minute you work them their MPGs go down the drain, like the Alzheimer’s Patient’s “IQ” we have in DC