Jump to content

What Engine You Chose and why VOTE

Big_Kahuna
 Share

what engine you chose   

237 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Anon12345 Enthusiast

Anon12345

Posted
Posted
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?

  • Like 2
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GETGONE
GETGONE

6.2L Because go big or go home! Of course when I ordered it gas wasn't stupid expensive! I got to order my truck and decided it wasn't too much more to go with the 6.2 over the 5.3 and in the Custom t

Billy Ogle
Billy Ogle

I choose the 3.0 because I drive 60+miles a day to work, needed a new truck that was fuel efficient  and didn’t need a 3/4 ton. 

Anon12345
Anon12345

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. 

Posted Images

Low Elevation Enthusiast

Low Elevation

Posted
Posted
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. 

 

  • Like 1
Anon12345 Enthusiast

Anon12345

Posted
Posted
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 Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted

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. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Anon12345 Enthusiast

Anon12345

Posted
Posted
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. 

  • Haha 4
Trevor Towers Enthusiast

Trevor Towers

Posted
Posted
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 Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted
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! 

  • Thanks 1
customboss Senior Enthusiast

customboss

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Trevor Towers Enthusiast

Trevor Towers

Posted
Posted
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.  

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted
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 

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

    • KARNUT
      Post Pics of your "Other" Rides

      By KARNUT · Posted

      Well one of our most reliable vehicles was sold yesterday. The first and only I gave for free to a grandkid. If they got skin in the game they take care of it. My wife bought new. Five years later my daughter got it to use. We got it back and gave it to our grandson after graduation. He did zero maintenance just oil changes. When the AC quit he drove his mother’s car rather than get it fixed. Instead he just bought a beater and sold the Elantra. 
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      I usually do as well or better than the sticker for mileage. Usually better going west than east. North then South. Wind makes a difference. I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist. But it did dawn on me I’m going by the vehicle calculation. Now that would be interesting.
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/fuel-economy-stickers-don-t-tell-the-whole-story-aaa-data-reveals-why/ar-AA26ocHk?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=6a4122ea3dae47e5b8dfbed5d4fd3d55&cvpid=648f6b4fc2fa4eddb4c12893aeb957ed&ei=59
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      What’s missing in all this is patience and investment in the future. Buy a 170K starter home. Ten years later sell it invest in a more expensive home. Eventually you’ll have a 600K home and pay starter home payments. Buy a starter car. Maintain it well. Save the payments after it’s payed for then buy an expensive car if you desire. Buy a tumbler make your own coffee, pack your lunch. Cook your own dinner. Most importantly take care of your car.
    • Atlas
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Atlas · Posted

      People mislead themselves. Statistics are highly useful indicators.   Here's the tie-in to this thread. If an oil sample tests shows a wear indicator of 7 using cheaper ACDelco oil, and a wear indicator of 2 (lower = less wear) using a particular brand of Mobil oil, and wear has a linear relationship with engine lifespan, anyone could assume that Mobil is reducing wear by more than 50% (let's just say a 200% reduction for you red state people trying hard to do math) which leads to increasing engine life by 2x. Perhaps, in a vacuum, by itself, when dreamed by AI.   Yeah?! That's what the statistic is saying, isn't it?   No, it isn't. It didn't come out and say engine life is doubled. That's a very bad assumption, and a case of severe myopia by assuming something potentially untrue about the only data point in focus.   Average cost of a new car is 50k. You bet it is.   The median cost of a new car is more like 35k. Expensive cars are skewing the perception that "average" now means a $50k price of entry for a very average automobile. And that's not true. People who don't understand statistics twist the living heck out of them to mean all sorts of things they don't actually mean.   "Average" new car payment is $1000/month. Yep, it is. And in that number are all the $35k new car buyers who bring significant equity, and the $25k new car buyers who finance the car for a month just to get a rebate, and then pay it off. Know what isn't in that number? All the payments made by people who don't finance a car.   Picking one's own data point (don't have a car payment, never paid $50k for a new vehicle, my house cost $170k, I afforded a middle class lifestyle on $4.50/hr) is just a data point. Just like earning $25/hr in an area where the median home price is almost $1 Million is a data point. In fact, it's a lot of data points given that 80% of the US population lives in/around major cities. They're not idiots; the vast majority of them do it to make a living because that's where the big money is.   The highs have become higher, lows have become lower, and how your personal mileage varies is not truth for an entire country. At the same time you can't NOT acknowledge the data. While it doesn't paint YOUR personal picture, it certainly tints the reality that you also live in, as does your single data point.    

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...