Jump to content

5.3 vs 2.7

CK
 Share

Recommended Posts

repairman54 Enthusiast

repairman54

Posted
Posted

My 6.2 gets 20 mpg easily and consistently. Old '11 Tahoe 5.3 at its best barely made 19 on identical roads and trips, usually only 18 mpg. 

Not loaded up figures also. And no comparison to the power on tap with the 6.2. 

Look at the window stickers, same mpg ratings for the 5.3 or the 6.2. 

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Grumpy Bear
Grumpy Bear

1894 the Benz Velo, a 1.045-liter, 63.4 cubic inch motor made 1.5 hp and was the horsepower king of planet earth. By 1928 the Duesenberg straight 8 7 liter (420 CID) Supercharged made 265 hp. 2015 Bug

TrueBlue
TrueBlue

In June I bought an LT with the 2.7. I liked the grunt it put out. But at 700 miles the oil pan started leaking, and it gave me a chance to rectify my "mistake" of not getting the 5.3 to begin with. I

fondupot
fondupot

doubt. 

Posted Images

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted (edited)

My 02 5.3  avalanche with the 373 gear got 17 mpg at 72 mph on the interstate. My 14 gmc  with the 342 gear got 22 mph at 72 mph. I posted it at the time on an old gas mileage thread on this forum. With several hundred miles driven on that tank. I saw as much as much as 24 mpg at 60mph. Those were normal for that truck. 

Edited by KARNUT
TrueBlue Enthusiast

TrueBlue

Posted
Posted (edited)

In June I bought an LT with the 2.7. I liked the grunt it put out. But at 700 miles the oil pan started leaking, and it gave me a chance to rectify my "mistake" of not getting the 5.3 to begin with. I also was just not satisfied with the sound of the motor. So I traded it back in to the same dealer. Cost me a little more to get into the 5.3 that way, but I'm completely happy with my truck now.

I've had five brand new Chevy trucks in my life, along with a few used ones and I have to say that I like this one the best. So long as it treats me well for as long as the others did I will have no regrets. I put a Magnaflow 14" on it and it now sounds as it should, imo. I drive around in L9 all the time to keep it running all 8, and it has as much grunt as I need. A bit less than the 2.7 but that's due to the turbo on the latter. And I like the 10sp better than the 8, even though I'm only using 9 of the gears. I've had a couple of 350's in my trucks, and a 400 small block. None of them put out 355hp or close to 400lbs ft of torque. Technology has made for some great vehicles in the last 25 years or so. I average close to 18mpg every tank. The 5.3 is a hoot.

Edited by TrueBlue
  • Like 2
Vincej138 Enthusiast

Vincej138

Posted
Posted

Ive had my 2.7 HO for about 5K miles. For the first 4000 it was stock. The motor has 100% surpassed every expectation I had on it. Pulling hills with the turbo you fly past other trucks while getting 20+mpg. The power is there and the torque is there. The very top end it gets sluggish, but you rarely drive there. Its quiet if thats what you like, and the light overall weight rides nice and helps with wear and tear. 

 

The last 1K miles ive since added a 3" lift and 35's with a black widow muffler and have a CAI and hot/cold pipes in the garage to still get put on. Yes the MPG has gone down as expected but i'm still about 17mpg city with all that low end pep and it can still break the 35's loose. It doesn't sound like a honda with the black widow (they love turbo's) Just a muffle delete it likely would though. 

 

If I had to do it all over again, I would stay with the 2.7L

  • 2 weeks later...
Gangly Senior Enthusiast

Gangly

Posted
Posted

I have 115k+ miles on my 2020 5.3 and there is no lag whatsoever.  It gets after it whenever I need it to.

Mshawn Enthusiast

Mshawn

Posted
Posted
On 10/29/2023 at 2:23 PM, Silverado4x4 said:

I don't know what year your Ram was but all new vehicles come with torque management to protect the drivetrain. When my 5.3 was new it learns your driving style with the tranny but after I put about 1000 miles on or give our take it really woke up power and shifting wise, I love my 5.3 power and more than enough for what I need. Iam with you on the 4 cylinder motor as I don't want a 4 cylinder in a truck I don't care if it had 500hp but its always revving rpms and can't get past the sound of it. I could hear it now from people " Hey man nice truck what motor you have ummm its a 4cylinder" WHAT? But iam not downing it but it's not for me. Thats why there are choices.

The 2.7turbo is a great motor, however I buy the 5.3. I love it. The more I drive it the more responsive it gets. A lot of the lag is due to fuel management and driveline protection ,But it learns as you drive it. You will always have a little bit of lag in the new trucks. Doing a dfm delete helps a lot. I notice when I drive mine more aggressively that the next time I get in to go somewhere it is very responsive and aggressive for a little bit while I’m driving normal. Can’t go wrong with either engine though. The 2.7 turbo is a beast , well built engine in my opinion.

Mshawn Enthusiast

Mshawn

Posted
Posted
On 10/30/2023 at 6:19 AM, dieselfan1 said:

10 mpg from a 6.2????

C'mon man this is 2023 not 1983 

My 2023 High Country 6.2 has averaged 18-19 mpg since day one.

My best was a 100 mile run averaging 24 mpg.

I also have a 2022 with the 5.3

and it doesn't get as good mpg

Average of 16-17 mpg since it was new.

Work and back is 80+ miles for me and I’m getting 22-23 consistently with my 5.3 and I’m a crew cab z71 5.3 L84 all interstate though.

Silverado4x4 Senior Enthusiast

Silverado4x4

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Mshawn said:

Work and back is 80+ miles for me and I’m getting 22-23 consistently with my 5.3 and I’m a crew cab z71 5.3 L84 all interstate though.

Iam getting the same mileage as you on the interstate but I did see 27mpg on a 50 mile average on the dash.

  • Like 1
lowrider Enthusiast

lowrider

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "Sport Mode".  I use it all the time.  I feel no lag with my 5.3👍

 

Lou

Edited by lowrider
  • Like 1
Mshawn Enthusiast

Mshawn

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, lowrider said:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "Sport Mode".  I use it all the time.  I feel no lag with my 5.3👍

 

Lou

I’ve noticed that too. In sport mode it’s a lot more responsive. Thanks for bringing that up

ember1205 Senior Enthusiast

ember1205

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Mshawn said:

I’ve noticed that too. In sport mode it’s a lot more responsive. Thanks for bringing that up

 

Granted, I've barely made it past 500 miles on the new truck and I do know that the various control modules will take some time to adjust, but I notice NOTHING different from Sport Mode on my truck. :(

GMC Guy77 New Member

GMC Guy77

Posted
Posted
On 10/29/2023 at 11:29 PM, newdude said:

 

 

Do you drive with your foot stuck to the floor?  Or idle a lot?  Stop and go?  Because a 6.2 will get way more than 10 mpg any day of the week otherwise.  We have a 2020 Tahoe with a 6.2/10 speed in our loaner fleet and in 7,000mi its averaged 19.5mpg.

 

5.3 with the 10 speed is a great drive.  5.3 is cheap to operate too because it just needs 87 octane.  10 speed fires off shifts and allows that 5.3 to work its power better than the 6 and 8 speeds it had before. 

 

2.7 Turbomax is a great driver as well, especially over the 19-22 non HO/Turbomax ones.  And it too just needs 87 octane.  I have a 2.7 HO and absolutely love it.  More than both 5.3/6 speed trucks I had, a 2018 and a 2012.  

 

6.2 is a blast but 91 octane or higher is a must and that can add up if you are on a budget.  

I thought it was recommended to use at least 91 octane in the 2.7 turbos, using 87 will affect mpg's and engine wear and tear long term.

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Chris Barber said:

I thought it was recommended to use at least 91 octane in the 2.7 turbos, using 87 will affect mpg's and engine wear and tear long term.

 

 

87 is all that's needed.  GM engineered and tuned it for 87.  

ember1205 Senior Enthusiast

ember1205

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Chris Barber said:

I thought it was recommended to use at least 91 octane in the 2.7 turbos, using 87 will affect mpg's and engine wear and tear long term.

 

Nope. This is from the 2024 manual, but same Turbomax engine.

Screenshot 2023-12-06 at 9.14.29 AM.png

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

    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      Any joy with this truck seems to be short-lived.   The CEL for P0172 ("bank 1" too rich) is now "intermittent".   I'm not sure where to check, or re-check, and my energy to keep chasing problems with junk is wearing thin. The P0172 seems to set as I'm coming to a stop, completely off the throttle, when fully warm. At least, that's what it's done the 3? times it's set.   Everything appears normal on the scanner EXCEPT long term fuel trim. There's only one bank on this vehicle because it's an OBD 1.5 with only one upstream O2 sensor. At idle, it's around -16.4% and will dip to -18% occasionally at idle or off-throttle. LTFT approaches 0 when throttle is held at 2500rpm. Short term appears normal, much closer to zero all the time. The LTFT tells me the engine is running rich at idle but compensating at higher load. But, why?   The EVAP purge valve doesn't appear to be leaking/sucking fuel vapor continuously. Is it sticking just as I come to a stop and the engine is choking on fuel vapor and sets the P0172? But that doesn't explain the persistently negative LTFT. Disconnecting the purge valve doesn't seem to make any difference.   I suppose that leaves another dang issue with the fuel injector. A leaking fuel pressure regulator, a new leak in the spider, or a leaking fuel injector/poppet valve I didn't see, or a small crack in one of the spider legs.   The vacuum line leading to the fuel pressure regulator doesn't have raw fuel in it. It doesn't even smell like fuel when it's pulled off, not until you suck air through it, then you can tell it leads to a fuel component. I'd consider that normal? Nothing is signaling this is a FPR issue from the outside, at least.   The oil smells like fuel but it's not building volume. I've noticed most oil in most engines smells like fuel to some degree so it's hard to say if the smell is an issue or not. Or if the engine just still smells like fuel because the crankcase was full of it a few hundred miles ago. But it's been changed twice since that original issue of the leaking fuel line dumping fuel into the intake.   Patience is running very thin. Every win seems to be accompanied by two steps backwards, or another issue that leads to removing at least the top half of the intake manifold. Enough! LOL
    • Chuck FB
      Tire pressure for 37s

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      First off you mentioned "Toyo Says" and then gave the pressures 45/50, was this some person at the tire shop that pulled those numbers out of his head ?   Now of course I can't know your exact axle weights front and rear, however I have much the same pickup as yourself other than not knowing your starting weight as per the pounds the truck rolled out of the factory at due to the options yours did or didn't come with or what you have added beyond the extra tire weight. The correct way to know 100% where a person is at is by weighing each axle with the typical weight the vehicle is driven with and that means taking into account passengers and making sure you figure in a full tank of fuel and a little grace for whatever you may put in the bed "groceries" !    I am looking at and not that it really matters as all the tire companies use the same charts anyway, but I am looking at the comprehensive Toyo tire chart in the section that your tire falls under and I know it sounds confusing but your tire is not an LT metric tire like your factory tire but instead because its a standard inch measured tire its under a different category called an LT floatation series tire. That makes a difference as LT metric tires they don't want to see run below 35 psi at highway speed where as with the LT floatation series it can be run down to 25 psi on the highway as long as the weight on the said size of tire is agreeable with or less than that minimum 25 psi. It blows many people away that how is this physically possible, an empty truck for one thing and larger tires with the same size wheel diameter have a lot more air volume so they can carry the same weight as the smaller tire with less air pressure.    So my truck, I have the stock 275/65R20 wheels and tires and I have a bit of weight in the box with a bak flip cover and a rubber bed mat and some tools and spare gas. The front of my gas truck weighs a bit more than some trucks of the similar spec due to double batteries and alternators. However with full fuel and just me in the truck I am weighted such that I can run 40 front and 35 rear and so that is what I have done since day one.    If I base your truck at or slightly below the weight of my truck, in theory with your tires going by the tire chart you might be right around a minimum of 30 pounds front and 25 pounds rear. Of course that would hit pretty much minimum cold inflation pressure one could run with that tire size and a near empty truck. If you have access to an accurate weigh scale to do individual front and rear axle weights I would suggest you do that and make sure your topped up with fuel and whatever else in the truck before you weigh it and then you will have a great starting point to work off of and figure out what your bare minimum pressures are you can safely run. If you do much in the way of hot weather high speed driving, bumping up a bit for a safety margin is never a bad idea but just depends on what type of driving you do. I will include the Toyo chart and the floatation series sizes start on page 31. Without a doubt at these pressures I am speculating at minimum wise for your truck, it would most certainly ride very different then it did when you were using 55 lb front and rear.     https://www.toyotires.com/media/pxcjubjs/application_of_load_inflation_tables_20200723.pdf
    • Snowcamo
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By Snowcamo · Posted

      Take an automotive stethoscope to the vacuum pump. Iirc those tick as well. 
    • rdonarski
      Towing In Loose Gravel

      By rdonarski · Posted

      This landing is worse than most. Patchy blacktop with washouts, soft gravel/sand at bottom that washes out with every heavy rain. I tell everyone to put it in 4WD. A lot of them think they can pull out their trailer in 2WD. They end up digging a hole and then putting it in 4WD.  The lake is a pristine lake and has a lot of money on it. There are several wake boats and lot of large tritoons. The people with the money don't want it improved because they don't want more traffic.    Boat Landing 1.jfif Boat Landing 2.jfif Boat Landing 3.jfif
    • PBNB
      Tire pressure for 37s

      By PBNB · Posted

      How wide are your rims?   Toyo specs 8.5-10.0-11.0 inches. My thought would be rim might be pulling the tire inwards creating a center that is more pronounced.    I also noticed that the spec sheet says max 65psi. So you could be right lowering the pressure to ~40 psi. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...