Jump to content

'23 6.2 meh performance

BB68
 Share

Recommended Posts

BB68 Enthusiast

BB68

Posted
Posted (edited)

I just recently traded in an 18 6.2 Silverado 8spd 3.23 gears for a 23 Sierra 6.2 10 spd 3.42 gears with Max Trailering.  I test drove it very little and was generally just getting rid of the 8 spd before the warranty ran out. A few weeks after, our boat (pulled many times with the '18) was ready for pick up and on the tow home I needed to pass a few cars.. In which it just doesn't have the get up as the old '18 when you swing out for a pass... That 18 used to set you back in the seat this 23 just feels like a 5.3, I was really expecting the '23 to have much better mid range with the lower gears and 10 speed... Anyone else feel like they dont have the power they used to? If I had known it would be this lack luster I might have considered the diesel a little more. 

 

EDIT If someone told me this was a second slower in the quarter mile vs the 18 i would believe them

Edited by BB68
reeseb Enthusiast

reeseb

Posted
Posted

I didn't tow anything with either truck, but went from a 2020 5.3 8-speed to a 2021 6.2 10-speed and the 6.2 was noticeably quicker and had more torque.  

  • Like 2
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, BB68 said:

I just recently traded in an 18 6.2 Silverado 8spd 3.23 gears for a 23 Sierra 6.2 10 spd 3.42 gears with Max Trailering.  I test drove it very little and was generally just getting rid of the 8 spd before the warranty ran out. A few weeks after, our boat (pulled many times with the '18) was ready for pick up and on the tow home I needed to pass a few cars.. In which it just doesn't have the get up as the old '18 when you swing out for a pass... That 18 used to set you back in the seat this 23 just feels like a 5.3, I was really expecting the '23 to have much better mid range with the lower gears and 10 speed... Anyone else feel like they dont have the power they used to? If I had known it would be this lack luster I might have considered the diesel a little more. 

I’m spitballing here it goes. A few years ago I was reading car and drivers test with the 6.2 and the new 10 speed. The 0-60 actually slowed a bit. The speculated was that the tq management was slowing it down with more shifts more tq management. Perhaps depending on your speed and passing you drop multiple gears. While shifting back up through the gears at full throttle or near it. TQ management was de throttling to ease stress on the transmission. Love those nannies. I always wonder with the TQ range if all those gears was overkill. 

BB68 Enthusiast

BB68

Posted
  • Author
Posted
24 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

I’m spitballing here it goes. A few years ago I was reading car and drivers test with the 6.2 and the new 10 speed. The 0-60 actually slowed a bit. The speculated was that the tq management was slowing it down with more shifts more tq management. Perhaps depending on your speed and passing you drop multiple gears. While shifting back up through the gears at full throttle or near it. TQ management was de throttling to ease stress on the transmission. Love those nannies. I always wonder with the TQ range if all those gears was overkill. 

 

I fully agree on more shifts = slower ET.

 

While towing/passing it down shifted once and hung out in that gear the entire pass. I dont know what gear that was as I am still getting used to this new display.

 

I will also agree the torque management system intervenes quite often. With the 18 if you took off from a stop sign at full throttle each time it shifted you could feel the throttle pulling back and also hear the tire stop squealing until it was fully in the next gear. I have not performed any stop sign acceleration test yet with the '23, will after a couple oil changes. 

  • Like 1
Badbird2000 Enthusiast

Badbird2000

Posted
Posted

I just want to know where you found one with max two package! I'm looking for an RST with the 6.2 and max tow... within a few hundred miles of me.. no dice

  • Like 1
ExYukon Enthusiast

ExYukon

Posted
Posted

I went from a 2010 Yukon Denali w/Max Trailering (6.2L, 6 speed) to a 2023 Silverado 1500 crew cab short bed w/Max trailering (6.2L, 10 speed).  I tow a 7100 pound travel trailer.  The new truck has 6000 miles, 1500 of that was towing.

 

I feel the new 6.2 is plenty strong.  With the Yukon, I felt the need to use WOT somewhat often when towing.  With the Silverado, I think I've used it maybe once.  It just doesn't seem necessary.   I think the additional gear ratios in the 10 speed help that perception.

 

Another difference I have noticed is the use of the top gear.  Then Yukon would almost never drop into sixth gear when we are towing.  It would usually be in fifth on flat ground.  Both vehicles have 3.42 gears, and eighth in the 10-speed is the same ratio as fifth in the 6-speed, so I expected to mostly be in eighth.  But it actually spends a fair amount of time in tenth. 

 

The biggest challenge I've given the new truck was Raton pass (6700 feet to 7800 feet, so pretty mild) and it pulled like a champ with no drama.  I'll hit the Eisenhower Tunnel in June.

f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BB68 said:

 

I fully agree on more shifts = slower ET.

 

 

But the shifts put you right back in the power band on a 10A vs 8A?

The T1 is heavier and has a bigger overall footprint so i would think it would be right around the K2 6.2s . 

I also think the stock tires are also one diameter bigger on all models. 

 

I have had 2 K2 6.2s and now my 2019 6.2 , they both feel pretty much the same to me.  I mean its the same engine output so if there is a difference its very little .  

I still cant believe we are going on 10 years with the same engine outputs. 

  • Like 1
BB68 Enthusiast

BB68

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, f8l vnm said:

But the shifts put you right back in the power band on a 10A vs 8A? That only matters when you have a very short torque curve... these 6.2s are like a 454/8.1 as far as torque curve. 

The T1 is heavier and has a bigger overall footprint so i would think it would be right around the K2 6.2s . Its probably close enough that I shouldnt be able to feel it.  

I also think the stock tires are also one diameter bigger on all models. Same size tires on mine

 

I have had 2 K2 6.2s and now my 2019 6.2 , they both feel pretty much the same to me.  I mean its the same engine output so if there is a difference its very little .  This T1 6.2 is neutered compared to my 18 K2... I have hauled that boat all over with the K2 and know the feel. I believe torque management maybe over stepping its bounds here  

I still cant believe we are going on 10 years with the same engine outputs. 

 

see responses

BB68 Enthusiast

BB68

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, ExYukon said:

I went from a 2010 Yukon Denali w/Max Trailering (6.2L, 6 speed) to a 2023 Silverado 1500 crew cab short bed w/Max trailering (6.2L, 10 speed).  I tow a 7100 pound travel trailer.  The new truck has 6000 miles, 1500 of that was towing.

 

I feel the new 6.2 is plenty strong.  With the Yukon, I felt the need to use WOT somewhat often when towing.  With the Silverado, I think I've used it maybe once.  It just doesn't seem necessary.   I think the additional gear ratios in the 10 speed help that perception.

 

Another difference I have noticed is the use of the top gear.  Then Yukon would almost never drop into sixth gear when we are towing.  It would usually be in fifth on flat ground.  Both vehicles have 3.42 gears, and eighth in the 10-speed is the same ratio as fifth in the 6-speed, so I expected to mostly be in eighth.  But it actually spends a fair amount of time in tenth. 

 

The biggest challenge I've given the new truck was Raton pass (6700 feet to 7800 feet, so pretty mild) and it pulled like a champ with no drama.  I'll hit the Eisenhower Tunnel in June.

 

2010 6.2 to LT6.2 is a big jump and I believe it does make more midrange power. 

 

This '23 is adequate, just does have the mid range punch the '18 had. Right now I'm a little disappointed. Time will tell next month Ill have another 8 hour haul down to TRL, that will give some seat time in the mini mountains  

BB68 Enthusiast

BB68

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 hours ago, Badbird2000 said:

I just want to know where you found one with max two package! I'm looking for an RST with the 6.2 and max tow... within a few hundred miles of me.. no dice

 

I missed out on a couple at Laura (like hours)... But I had a backup somewhat local and I found that they quit making them for a while so I took the plunge. Not as good good of deal but hopefully I'll have a place to fit me in if I have any repair needs

 

I went with GMC this time due to my distaste of current Chevy design. 

  • Like 1
Amcguy1970 Enthusiast

Amcguy1970

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BB68 said:

 

see responses

 

"That only matters when you have a very short torque curve... these 6.2s are like a 454/8.1 as far as torque curve. "

 

Are we looking at the same torque curve? The 8.1 has over 90% or its torque available around 1k rpm and peaks around 3k, it doesn't like to rev much and is similar to the old V8's making a ton more torque (which peaked way low) than HP and wasn't rev happy. The 8.1 makes peak HP just over 4k rpm, nearly 1500rpm lower than the 6.2. The 6.2 likes to rev, makes only 70% of its peak torque a little over 1k rpm and peaks the torque out over 4k rpm while HP goes all the way to 5600. The 6.2 in the trucks is very similar to the corvette/camaro motor (at the time), not exactly a stump pulling torque monster that 496 or 454 were known for. Gotta rev it to make its power. 

 

This is why these smaller turbo motors are great, you get most all the goods of the torque way down low as can still make great power up top. Best of both worlds. 

 

Tyler

BB68 Enthusiast

BB68

Posted
  • Author
Posted
18 hours ago, Amcguy1970 said:

 

"That only matters when you have a very short torque curve... these 6.2s are like a 454/8.1 as far as torque curve. "

 

Are we looking at the same torque curve? The 8.1 has over 90% or its torque available around 1k rpm and peaks around 3k, it doesn't like to rev much and is similar to the old V8's making a ton more torque (which peaked way low) than HP and wasn't rev happy. The 8.1 makes peak HP just over 4k rpm, nearly 1500rpm lower than the 6.2. The 6.2 likes to rev, makes only 70% of its peak torque a little over 1k rpm and peaks the torque out over 4k rpm while HP goes all the way to 5600. The 6.2 in the trucks is very similar to the corvette/camaro motor (at the time), not exactly a stump pulling torque monster that 496 or 454 were known for. Gotta rev it to make its power. 

 

This is why these smaller turbo motors are great, you get most all the goods of the torque way down low as can still make great power up top. Best of both worlds. 

 

Tyler

 

 

Whoa buddy..... this thread is about a current '23 6.2 to my previous '18 6.2. Have you had any time behind the wheel of both?

alrockaz Enthusiast

alrockaz

Posted
Posted

I agree with you. I went from a 2017 6.2 to a 2020 6.2 and it feels like something is bound in the drivetrain, not allowing it to spin up as freely. 

luke1333 Enthusiast

luke1333

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree, drove plenty of new 6.2 yukons & trucks and my 2020 5.3 feels almost the same. Older 14-18 6.2 felt like rawer power. The problem I think is the 6.2 is heavier by a good bit over the 5.3 and doesn't make a enough power to offset the weight difference or enough that you can noticeable feel

Edited by luke1333
dieselfan1 Senior Enthusiast

dieselfan1

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, luke1333 said:

I agree, drove plenty of new 6.2 yukons & trucks and my 2020 5.3 feels almost the same. Older 14-18 6.2 felt like rawer power. The problem I think is the 6.2 is heavier by a good bit over the 5.3 and doesn't make a enough power to offset the weight difference or enough that you can noticeable feel

I doubt there is much weight difference. 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 443 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...