What Engine You Chose and why VOTE

[Grumpy Bear]

9 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.  

 

Argument begs a question.

 

How much torque does a 1/2 need to do 1/2 ton work?

 

Boys and girls that has gone unanswered by any thread considering this NEED for 1 ton performance from a 1/2 platform.

 

The 255 Flathead Ford put out 200 lb/ft torque and built half this country.  

[Trevor Towers]

22 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Argument begs a question.

 

How much torque does a 1/2 need to do 1/2 ton work?

 

Boys and girls that has gone unanswered by any thread considering this NEED for 1 ton performance from a 1/2 platform.

 

The 255 Flathead Ford put out 200 lb/ft torque and built half this country.  

You really don’t need 400 lb-ft of torque in a 1/2 ton, but adding torque (unlike horsepower) does not hurt efficiency, it can actually increase it. Especially when the engine is optimized for torque as is industry standard for trucks these days. So why wouldn’t I want more torque?

[OliverDennis52]

220/221, Whatever it takes.  Sorry, couldn't help myself 

[flattie]

I have a 2022 refresh Sierra 1500 on order with the 3.0L duramax.  The AFM and lifter issues concerned me enough to give the diesel a try.  The 2.7L turbo on a truck this size just doesn't make sense to me.  My use is some around time with longer trips (3 to 6 hours) so the diesel seemed like a decent fit. 

[Grumpy Bear]

3 hours ago, Trevor Towers said:

You really don’t need 400 lb-ft of torque in a 1/2 ton, but adding torque (unlike horsepower) does not hurt efficiency, it can actually increase it. Especially when the engine is optimized for torque as is industry standard for trucks these days. So why wouldn’t I want more torque?

 

For the OEM this is about fuel and EPA/CARB and the "Perception' of 'Better". When the did the T1 they increase efficiency and then added a butt load of frontal area which lowered mpg and got rid of the lightest RCSB after pulling that much from the LB platform. 

 

Want and need are two different things.  They loose me when the increase efficiency then shrink the motor size and take it away. Remove weight and add frontal area. Add stop start and DFM and take away Flex Fuel. 

 

My question addressed NEED not what people want. They are playing a shell game and the house IS winning. 

Play if you like. I'll hold the cards I have. It's been a winning hand so far. BTW, so far has been longer than they wish. 

[Black02Silverado]

For me it was the 6.2 for the fun factor.  Not a daily driver so mpg isn't an issue.  Plus, when I got it back in 2019 it was the only way to get the 10sp.

[newdude]

On 4/20/2022 at 1:15 PM, 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. 

 

 

5.3 with the 10 speed is an excellent combo.  Better than the 8 speed and shiznits on the 5.3 6 speeds.  

[BossTaco2020]

Love my 5.3L w/10spd. Gets decent gas mileage for a V8, has enough get up and go for EVERY situation I've found myself in these past 2 years. And I love not having to pay $$$ for premium. Not gonna knock the 6.2 or 3.0 diesel or even the turbo 4. All of their place and intended uses. In my case, I use my truck as a daily driver doing about 40 miles round trip with a mix of city and hwy driving. On the weekends during the summer, I tow my 21ft boat. On the weekends during the winter, I head up to my mountain cabin which is on an unpaved trail with a decent incline. The 5.3L has done everything I've asked it to do. I would not benefit one iota from a 6.2 and I absolutely do not regret getting the 5.3.

 

The only thing I wish for my truck was that it did not have the auto start/stop feature. And better shocks. I've enjoyed the 30K miles I've put on these past two years and I'm looking forward to many thousand more!

[Low Elevation]

On 4/20/2022 at 2:22 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

 

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

 

You want.....

 

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

This is just a street truck for me. I don’t tow and haul only normal items. I will be lowering the truck as I like the look. Again the 2.7t felt quicker than the 5.3 when I drove both so I went with it. I don’t think I could get the 6.2 with the elevation package or I would have gotten that and that was the look I wanted. 

[redwngr]

Different wants and needs.

 

There is a reason they offer multiple powertrain and suspension options.

 

 

 

[Big_Kahuna]

this is going good, I can't believe the 6.2 is in a lead , nice 

[Samthebam]

Bought my Dec.’19 manufactured 2019 in March of 20 during the onset of Covid with the 5.3 6-speed.  It has the max trailering package which gave me 3.73 rear gears in the bigger rear end housing, the rear locking differential, slightly lower stance and stiffer spring rates.
I’ve been very pleased with the power, overall mpg - about 18.5 - and the torque. The rear gearing helps quite a bit.

And I have used regular fuel during all of its just over 20k miles.

Great, great truck.  The max trailering with the lower gears just works.

[Gangly]

On 4/19/2022 at 6:32 PM, Anon12345 said:

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.  

Not trying to argue, but forged is heavier than cast, not the other way around. The 2.7 revs faster because there are only 4 pistons, much less rotating mass per given hp. 

 

I went with the 5.3 because like the 6.2, its a bulletproof motor when the internal components are to spec from the factory (lifters and springs). The 6.2 and 5.3 share identical technology with effective variances only in displacement.  One is not newer or older than the other regarding technology and design, and both benefited from the head design changes implemented after the introduction of the LS7 427 motor (rectangle port heads vs cathedral port).  They are effectively near identical motor designs other than displacement and accompanying features related to displacement.  If you were to say one design is outdated, then you are saying both engines are outdated.

 

The only reason I didn't go with the 6.2 is because of increased gas costs since the higher octane gas can be upwards of a dollar or more in cost per gallon here.  I put 30K plus miles a year on my truck and that dollar per gallon adds up.

 

Al three are great motors, especially with the updated values for 2022.  If I had to chose again, I would stick with the 5.3.  If gas price plummeted back down to 1.89/gal, I would strongly consider the 6.2.

[Gangly]

On 4/20/2022 at 11:03 PM, 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.  

Peak numbers are useless bragging rights that mean nothing to people who know better.   The L84 5.3 make's its power early and holds it for a looooooong time, with a beautiful and long plateau, PERFECT for towing or grunt work.  In the tow and haul industry(hotshot, etc.) where efficiency is everything, peak motor numbers are for arm chair bragging rights, "area under the curve" delivers a real world product. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Gangly

[Shall36]

Couple of thoughts…

 

yes, 220/221, whatever it takes.  Awesome reference. 
 

There were no muscle cars 15 to 20 years ago.    The ‘74 Trans Am SD 455 was arguably the last muscle car until….wait for it…the Buick GN. Yes, these trucks are quicker than most of the sports cars from 1972 to 2005, with the exception of properly equipped Fox bodies and 4th/5th gen Camaros. I recall factory Late 80’s fox bodies getting into the low 14’s and high 13’s and there were SOOOOO many performance parts for those cars. I remember the early LS F Bodies having lots of potential. I always thought the mustangs and F bodies were just garbage cars all around so I never bought one.  
 

The 6.2 is awesome especially when towing. The 5.3 is double the goodness of the first gen SBC, except for the stupid AFM/DFM…and only because of lifters failing…not because of the operation. If your 5.3 is a slug, you probably have a stupid high rear end gear. I had an Avalanche with the 5.3/6-speed/3.08. What a turd. I had a 3.73 installed (that was a fiasco) and that gear really woke up the truck. It was still a turd overall, but it least it towed my camper better.
 

Building power with an LS is sooooo easy compared to the first gen SBC. Oh my gosh….dollar for dollar, there is no comparison. It’s all in the heads. The only LS based motor that was a bit of a turd was the 4.8.  Anyone pining for a first gen SBC over an LS is waxing nostalgic….maybe you want your 300 baud modem back, too?  Yes, I had one of those and thought it was the best thing ever.  Yes, you would literally see text scrolling onto the screen, line by line.