Jump to content

5.3 vs 2.7

CK
 Share

Recommended Posts

GMC Guy77 New Member

GMC Guy77

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, ember1205 said:

 

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

Screenshot 2023-12-06 at 9.14.29 AM.png

Good to know, thanks

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 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

Texcl2 Enthusiast

Texcl2

Posted
Posted

I drive a 2.7ho and a 5.3 both 2022’s both now  have just over 30k miles. I personally like the 2.7 better, it feels more responsive. The 5.3 gets 4 to 5 mpg worse mileage. I have had no serious problems with either. The 2.7ho pulls a trailer just as well as a 5.3 and might have a slight edge mpg wise but the lead shrinks here. If the 2.7 makes it to 250k without a major malfunction I will be happy and classify it as better than the 5.3 but that has yet to be seen. 

  • Like 1
Bikerjon Enthusiast

Bikerjon

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Texcl2 said:

I drive a 2.7ho and a 5.3 both 2022’s both now  have just over 30k miles. I personally like the 2.7 better, it feels more responsive. The 5.3 gets 4 to 5 mpg worse mileage. I have had no serious problems with either. The 2.7ho pulls a trailer just as well as a 5.3 and might have a slight edge mpg wise but the lead shrinks here. If the 2.7 makes it to 250k without a major malfunction I will be happy and classify it as better than the 5.3 but that has yet to be seen. 

Does your 2.7 use oil?

Diamond817 Enthusiast

Diamond817

Posted
Posted (edited)

The 2.7 might get the jump on the 5.3 to 30mph but the 5.3 will start pulling away and get to 60mph a second faster and will continue to widen the gap into the 1/4 mile. The 5.3 also will perform way better passing at highway speeds, the 2.7 runs out of breath in the higher rpms and at passing at highway speeds. If you're mostly a local city driver, then yeah, the 2.7 works, but if you're a mostly highway guy like me, the 5.3 is the way to go.

Edited by Diamond817
  • 1 month later...
Mshawn Enthusiast

Mshawn

Posted
Posted
On 11/30/2023 at 4:57 AM, 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.

Update: work and back is up to 26.4 mpg with a 4wd z-71 5.3 what other 1/2 ton v8 4wd can do that?

  • 3 weeks later...
Gangly Senior Enthusiast

Gangly

Posted
Posted

With a lift, AT's, and removed front air dam, my Z71 is  getting around 21 mpg on the freeway doing 75-79 mph.  If I drop the speed down to 70 mph, I'll get 22+ mpg.  Current odometer reading is 120K+

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/18/2023 at 8:10 PM, Diamond817 said:

The 2.7 might get the jump on the 5.3 to 30mph but the 5.3 will start pulling away and get to 60mph a second faster and will continue to widen the gap into the 1/4 mile. The 5.3 also will perform way better passing at highway speeds, the 2.7 runs out of breath in the higher rpms and at passing at highway speeds. If you're mostly a local city driver, then yeah, the 2.7 works, but if you're a mostly highway guy like me, the 5.3 is the way to go.

 

 

I own a 2.7 HO, came from a 5.3 before it.  Never had a "run out of breath" scenario with the 2.7 HO vs my 5.3.  

Edited by newdude
fondupot Senior Enthusiast

fondupot

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Gangly said:

With a lift, AT's, and removed front air dam, my Z71 is  getting around 21 mpg on the freeway doing 75-79 mph.  If I drop the speed down to 70 mph, I'll get 22+ mpg.  Current odometer reading is 120K+


doubt. 

  • Like 2
ember1205 Senior Enthusiast

ember1205

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, fondupot said:


doubt. 

Actual/Calculated? I also doubt it. 

 

Guesstimated by the crappy algorithm in the truck and displayed in the dash? Maybe.

 

My last truck consistently showed at least 1MPG higher than actual. 

  • Like 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Diamond817 Enthusiast

Diamond817

Posted
Posted
On 2/7/2024 at 12:05 PM, newdude said:

 

 

I own a 2.7 HO, came from a 5.3 before it.  Never had a "run out of breath" scenario with the 2.7 HO vs my 5.3.  

Punch it when traveling at 75-80mph, let me know what happens. The 5.3 takes off like a rocket, the 2.7 falls flat on its face. I test drove both extensively before buying. Again, if you're a city/local driver the 2.7 works, but that's where it ends.

  • Like 1
fondupot Senior Enthusiast

fondupot

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Diamond817 said:

Punch it when traveling at 75-80mph, let me know what happens. The 5.3 takes off like a rocket, the 2.7 falls flat on its face. I test drove both extensively before buying. Again, if you're a city/local driver the 2.7 works, but that's where it ends.


I agree with this. I’ve driven both. My 2.7 feels fine around town. Torquey and peppy. But on the highway the passing power really lacks compared to what a 5.3 has. 
 

The 2.7 is fine for cruising at highway speeds tho. Just not good for passing power. 

  • Like 1
TrueBlue Enthusiast

TrueBlue

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, fondupot said:


I agree with this. I’ve driven both. My 2.7 feels fine around town. Torquey and peppy. But on the highway the passing power really lacks compared to what a 5.3 has. 
 

The 2.7 is fine for cruising at highway speeds tho. Just not good for passing power. 

 

Good example of the difference between torque and horsepower.

MaverickZ71 Senior Enthusiast

MaverickZ71

Posted
Posted (edited)

Real world fuel mileage with the hammer down, like you apparently like to drive, is not appreciably different between the 2.7, 5.3, and 6.2. There are decisions to make in life. If you want fuel mileage in a GMC, the 3.0 diesel is for you. Trucks are not pony cars,but If you want the sense of acceleration, it's the 6.2 with active exhaust. Or stay with Stellantis and look at the Hurricane SST HO for the '25 Ram 1500; 500 hp and 600 ft lb. 

 

https://youtu.be/ji4OD31rBaI?si=Wx-TWYx0ma3KlLef

 

https://youtu.be/jSVg06mGiWI?si=MS8KRTkjUkw5UT-a

Edited by MaverickZ71
Vincej138 Enthusiast

Vincej138

Posted
Posted
On 2/16/2024 at 3:44 PM, Diamond817 said:

Punch it when traveling at 75-80mph, let me know what happens. The 5.3 takes off like a rocket, the 2.7 falls flat on its face. I test drove both extensively before buying. Again, if you're a city/local driver the 2.7 works, but that's where it ends.

 

Maybe for the pre-refresh.. My 22' with the HO version takes off at 70-75 when passing other trucks. That's with 35's. Def does not fall flat on its face whatsoever, and thats when pulling a decent grade in heading up north from Phoenix. So maybe flat the V8 can pull it. But ill take the extra torque when it matters. 

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
      Missing thrust bearing? And oil selection

      By Atlas · Posted

      No doubt... But, as someone who doesn't pay for his services, but who has provided a few views/clicks on his Youtube platform, the data around the Mobil oil testing I think does have some value including to "freeloaders" like me.   A lot of what he's doing is likely showing the OE's work in their oil selection, something that many of us had kind of assumed was true all along, a good balance of both excellent protection and efficiency.
    • Z45
      Missing thrust bearing? And oil selection

      By Z45 · Posted

      Lake Speed is drumming up business for his company just by being in the spot-light so he has a vested interest in stoking the 0W-20 fire.  IMO  
    • Chuck FB
      summer road trips in the 2026 2500HD

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I knew when I bought my truck that it had off road hill decent or craw control or whatever they call it and rolled my eyes at that but it gets throw on with other options my truck has, I just never had a heads up if the highway speed regular cruise setting had anything to do with the brakes and that took me by surprise. If you've ever been to the top of Pikes Peak and watched those ahead of you on the way down with their brake lights on constantly, one can guess they are probably not gearing down or not enough anyway if their vehicle will allow and a good reason their is a brake check spot part way down where they use an infra red heat gun to check how hot ones brakes are front and rear.    Your right that once one gets out of the front range by Denver and I've not been on that stretch of 285 between Denver and Fairplay myself but I know its high and Fairplay at 10000 feet, Buena Vista at 8000, it drops a bit from there but then your going back up and over the 11000 pass and Durango is at 6500 . So yes your definitely right that 6500 and a lot higher is the theme of going anywhere out in that direction from Denver but hey, the down hill sections give fantastic fuel mileage !.    I don't even look at the fuel pumps for what premium costs here, since I live on a farm and up to this point get fuel delivered I am rarely in front of a fuel pump and when I am, I am often using card lock bulk fuel stations so it tells me what the price is AFTER I buy the fuel. Looking up on gas buddy and converting to US gallons but in Canadian dollars, regular on average of the prices listed was around 5.95 and premium is around 7.00 . That was one reason I did not go for the 6.2 half ton aside from its lack of carrying/towing if one was going by the rule of using premium fuel and until recently one could only buy regular farm gas if playing the few cents off game for farm dyed fuel for a "farm licensed pickup". But yes I hear you on the fuel price difference and like the diesel theme with it often being more expensive then gas it doesn't have quite the charm to it either as it once did although right now here for some reason the price of diesel has come down more so its now inline with the price of regular gas. 
    • KARNUT
      Missing thrust bearing? And oil selection

      By KARNUT · Posted

      I agree with this assessment. As you know I’m testing longevity with vehicles for the first time. I have a few vehicles I passed to kids and grandkids. We’re all past 100K miles some approaching 170K. I’m the only one doing 5k oil changes. The rest whatever the minder says. I’m the only one doing frequent transmission service. My odyssey the trip vehicle at 200K will be finished as a trip vehicle. I recently changed to high mileage oil, Valvoline. I can’t get past the fact that all manufacturers want to claim long service life. I just don’t make sense that they would go with low weight oil for mileage. While sacrificing longevity.
    • Atlas
      Missing thrust bearing? And oil selection

      By Atlas · Posted

      There's absolutely a mountain of profit in catering to the "I do my own research" crowd, people who are certain they know better. And I don't mean there isn't data to support that 0w40 produces less wear product than 0w20 in an engine like the 3.0 Duramax, that only feeds them the assurance they need. Again, my whole thing with oil selection is, sure, 0w40 or 0w30 produces less wear product. Are we talking the difference between the engine lasting only 100k versus 200k? Or are we talking more like, if the engine will already go 350k on a good 0w20 regimen recommended by the OE, is using 0w40 going to get us to 355k, assuming we can even get the rest of the truck to last that long, meanwhile sacrificing the first 5y, 100k in powertrain warranty. The answer isn't easy, there are tradeoffs.   I willfully use 0w20 Dexos D for this reason, knowing that a 0w40 will produce slightly less wear. I don't believe the delta in wear product is meaningful over the lifetime of the engine, and I place much more importance on driving style and overall feeding and care of the engine as a whole. It's the mentality that someone can abstain from alcohol their whole life which is an amazing boost to health by itself, theoretically. But if they're sedentary, that lifestyle choice will most likely kill them young despite their other, concerted efforts. Maybe someone doesn't drink AND they are the perfect picture of health and activity AND they use 0w40 AND they treat their engine perfectly. If living until 130 years is the goal, sure, do that. But it's going to be a really old truck falling apart around a good engine for that last 30 years, without a doubt.   I watched Demonworks' other video on the 100k+ 3.0 Duramax that had dealer 0w20 changes on what appears to be OLM-prescribed intervals (8-10k).   The QR codes are still present and readable on the main bearings. That's how little wear it has.   That's not proof that anyone else should stick to 0w20, but it's confirmation, for me, that 0w20 is perfectly acceptable to use in these engines.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...