2022 5.3l vs 2.7l 0-60 Times

[Diamond817]

Has anyone seen official 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for the new 2022 HO (430 tq) 2.7l vs the. 2022 5.3l? But based on the same spec trucks like crew cab short bed 4x4's. Not like an idiotic comparison of a 2wd single cab vs a 4x4 crew cab, etc.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Diamond817

[HeySkippyDog]

Why does everyone want their truck to be a race car? If you want fast, get a sports car.

[Silverado4x4]

Just now, HeySkippyDog said:

Why does everyone want their truck to be a race car? If you want fast, get a sports car.

Iam with ya, it's a damn truck who cares.

[Diamond817]

1 hour ago, HeySkippyDog said:

Why does everyone want their truck to be a race car? If you want fast, get a sports car.

Has absolutely nothing to do with wanting a truck that's a race car.  I want to see how the new HO 2.7l stacks up against the 5.3l and 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are a benchmark for doing so.

[KARNUT]

It’s a measuring tool to show improvements over the competition. One of the many that determines bragging rights. It matters enough that all reviews include them. 

[pokismoki]

with the 2.7 your loosing torque compared to the v8.  smaller motor will consume as much fuel if not more trying to keep up with the larger displacement and more cylinders.  GM adding boost to a little motor on a truck that weights 6000lbs. to make the same amount of HP as the v8  reduces reliability, and increases fuel consumption,compared to the v8... it's just a strategy to meet  federal emmissions on 1500 trucks 

consumer looses

 

if your gonna buy a heavy ass truck, get the 6.2L  then you can add gears and power adders. and delete all the emmissions stuff and  you'll be happier

 

i would look for the K2 truck in 2014-2017 years with either 6.0 or 6.2

Edited September 18, 2022 by pokismoki

[pokismoki]

0-60 = 7 second pig

 

i sure wouldn't get this motor in the SIlverado, but if its offered in the Colorado that might be a fun ride

 

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by pokismoki

[Diamond817]

48 minutes ago, pokismoki said:

with the 2.7 your loosing torque compared to the v8.  smaller motor will consume as much fuel if not more trying to keep up with the larger displacement and more cylinders.  GM adding boost to a little motor on a truck that weights 6000lbs. to make the same amount of HP as the v8  reduces reliability, and increases fuel consumption,compared to the v8... it's just a strategy to meet  federal emmissions on 1500 trucks 

consumer looses

 

if your gonna buy a heavy ass truck, get the 6.2L  then you can add gears and power adders. and delete all the emmissions stuff and  you'll be happier

 

i would look for the K2 truck in 2014-2017 years with either 6.0 or 6.2

 

The new 2.7l has 47 lbft more than the 5.3l (430vs383) and at a lower rpm with a flatter torque curve. The HP is 310 (2.7l) vs 355 (5.3l). 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Diamond817

[Diamond817]

46 minutes ago, pokismoki said:

0-60 = 7 second pig

 

i sure wouldn't get this motor in the SIlverado, but if its offered in the Colorado that might be a fun ride

 

 

 

That's just a youtubber. Youtube performance reviews are all over the place for every vehicle. I'm looking for something more professional, controlled, and accurate like a Car & Driver or MotorTrend review/comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

-

Edited September 18, 2022 by Diamond817

[pokismoki]

8 minutes ago, Diamond817 said:

 

The new 2.7l has 47lbft more than the 5.3l (430vs383) and at a lower rpm with a flatter torque curve. The HP is 310 (2.7l) vs 355 (5.3l). 

 

 

when you put all that hp and torque load across 4 cylinders, vs 8 cylinder. you will be increasing the wear by increasing the heat to thos smaller components. you will loose out in the long run.

 

i suggest leasing it and trashing it in 6 years

Edited September 18, 2022 by pokismoki

[pokismoki]

get the  turbo 4 in the Colorado instead, that is if you can fit in one of those lil' trucks

[Diamond817]

56 minutes ago, pokismoki said:

 

 

when you put all that hp and torque load across 4 cylinders, vs 8 cylinder. you will be increasing the wear by increasing the heat to thos smaller components. you will loose out in the long run.

 

i suggest leasing it and trashing it in 6 years

 

This is not true with modern engines using modern lubricants. Cars from the 80's yes, 90's yes, but engines and lubricants have come a long way since then. So much so, that reliability and longevity has almost become an irrelevant discussion.

 

 

 

-

Edited September 18, 2022 by Diamond817

[Diamond817]

8 minutes ago, pokismoki said:

get the  turbo 4 in the Colorado instead, that is if you can fit in one of those lil' trucks

 

I have absolutely no interest in the Colorado/Canyon or any other mid size pickup. It's not part of my inquiry.  All I'm looking for is official 0-60 & 1/4 mile times for the 2022 2.7l vs 5.3l Silverado in the same body/chassis configurations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Edited September 18, 2022 by Diamond817

[pokismoki]

1 hour ago, Diamond817 said:

 

This is not true with modern engines using modern lubricants. Cars from the 80's yes, 90's yes, but engines and lubricants have come a long way since then. So much so, that reliability and longevity has almost become an irrelevant discussion.

 

 

 

-

that's why so many of these new silverados have camshaft, vlom, issues, and smoked trannies at about 85000 miles, 

[4banger]

4 hours ago, Diamond817 said:

 

The new 2.7l has 47 lbft more than the 5.3l (430vs383) and at a lower rpm with a flatter torque curve. The HP is 310 (2.7l) vs 355 (5.3l). 

And at my elevation of 4000’ my 2.7 h.o. has 90 ft/lbs more torque at 1100 rpm lower rpm with only a 5 hp deficit. The short stroke 5.3 isn’t in the same league. At my elevation I have 22 ft/lbs more than the 6.2 but a 63 hp deficit. These v8 arguments are the same as the big block guys back in the late 80’s early 90’s who chastised the tiny 5.9 cummins turbo diesel. Same thing going on here. The 2.7 is more truck motor than either v8 and pretty much all half ton motors period. 
 

It’s a long stroke big bore forged bottom end with single turbo giving gobs of work at low rpm. 680 cc long stroke boosted cylinders vs the 666 cc short stroke naturally aspirated 5.3 cylinders that lose 3% power every 1000’ elevation. 

 

I laugh at the 0-60 arguments. I haven’t been able to run a 5.3 here yet but I will whip it even with the 400 lb fuel tank in back and my 585 lbs of gear and tools on board. The only interesting race will be a 6.2. 

Edited September 18, 2022 by 4banger