Best engine for mountain/hill climbing

[Z71RAD88]

I’m trying my best to educate myself on torque, horsepower, transmissions and gas verse diesel. I’m going to be shopping for a new 1500 as I do not tow anything nor have plans too. 
 

My employer is fortunate enough to have a spare company vehicle that’s a GMC 1500 with the 6.2 10 speed and that thing just cruises up Donner Summit in Northern California going to Nevada. It never downshifts it seems to have plenty of power to climb the hill. 
 

My question to the group - how much of climb is because of engine or the 10 speed being able to find the right gear, or is it both? If it’s the transmission being able to keep the truck is the right gear, would selecting the 5.3 allow me to not notice the difference? Or even better would the 3.0 diesel do better with turbos not being impacted by altitude and more torque down low? 
 

I do other vacations and trips in the mountains as well which would be loaded down with my wife and three kids. And a pick up bed and most likely camper shell filled with crappola. 
 

And yes, I’m typing this post in the garage on Mother’s Day otherwise I’d be in trouble for being on my phone.

[silveradosid]

the 6.2 needs super gas to perform that way, added expense. if you are not towing i would go with the 2.7 turbo. customboss also lives in high altitudes and has had no problems with his, plus you can run regular gas. ok V8 lovers you can start bashing me now lol

[Z71RAD88]

4 hours ago, silveradosid said:

the 6.2 needs super gas to perform that way, added expense. if you are not towing i would go with the 2.7 turbo. customboss also lives in high altitudes and has had no problems with his, plus you can run regular gas. ok V8 lovers you can start bashing me now lol

I’ll be the first to the party as one of the v8 lovers, a 4 cyl turbo ain’t my jam. 

[Paul Beaudet]

The 2.7 has pulled well for me on steep slopes (up to 15%) with my 4300# trailer. Barely makes a fuss about it. TBF, no long, continuous climbs near me.

 

The 2.7 really does drive like a diesel, but much quieter.

[Grumpy Bear]

On 5/12/2024 at 5:53 PM, Z71RAD88 said:

I’m trying my best to educate myself on torque, horsepower, transmissions and gas verse diesel. I’m going to be shopping for a new 1500 as I do not tow anything nor have plans too. 
 

My employer is fortunate enough to have a spare company vehicle that’s a GMC 1500 with the 6.2 10 speed and that thing just cruises up Donner Summit in Northern California going to Nevada. It never downshifts it seems to have plenty of power to climb the hill. 
 

My question to the group - how much of climb is because of engine or the 10 speed being able to find the right gear, or is it both? If it’s the transmission being able to keep the truck is the right gear, would selecting the 5.3 allow me to not notice the difference? Or even better would the 3.0 diesel do better with turbos not being impacted by altitude and more torque down low? 
 

I do other vacations and trips in the mountains as well which would be loaded down with my wife and three kids. And a pick up bed and most likely camper shell filled with crappola. 
 

And yes, I’m typing this post in the garage on Mother’s Day otherwise I’d be in trouble for being on my phone.

 

State Speed Limits | Colorado General Assembly

 

At one end of the spectrum, You could pedal over Loveland Pass. 11,990 ft. Just can't do it a 70 mph. Another consideration is the speed limit. Some winding Colorado mountain roads have limits as low as 20 mp. Open mountain highways are 40 mph. No idea what yours are in California. Power isn't such a big deal in those situations cause 'speed' is what you need horsepower for. Incline/weight is what you need torque for. What you may lack in motor you can obtain in gear. 

 

This will put the damper on the need for huge power: Variable speed limit signs to be posted along I-70 | FOX31 Denver (kdvr.com)

 

Everybody buys for the steepest fastest pass they can find run at the heaviest they can buy. What percentage of those buys ever use it? Patients and planning can save a guy allot of money. Just tossing it out there. 

[Z71RAD88]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

State Speed Limits | Colorado General Assembly

 

At one end of the spectrum, You could pedal over Loveland Pass. 11,990 ft. Just can't do it a 70 mph. Another consideration is the speed limit. Some winding Colorado mountain roads have limits as low as 20 mp. Open mountain highways are 40 mph. No idea what yours are in California. Power isn't such a big deal in those situations cause 'speed' is what you need horsepower for. Incline/weight is what you need torque for. What you may lack in motor you can obtain in gear. 

 

This will put the damper on the need for huge power: Variable speed limit signs to be posted along I-70 | FOX31 Denver (kdvr.com)

 

Everybody buys for the steepest fastest pass they can find run at the heaviest they can buy. What percentage of those buys ever use it? Patients and planning can save a guy allot of money. Just tossing it out there. 

we can go anywhere from 55-65 mph. 

[Grumpy Bear]

2 hours ago, Z71RAD88 said:

we can go anywhere from 55-65 mph. 

 

Then your real limit is your patients. Okay, and your pocketbook. 

[diyer2]

I live in Colorado, been here a long time. Towing, not towing. Motor homes, towing, not towing. 

The best motor? Anybody can go fast down hill.

[Z71RAD88]

5 minutes ago, diyer2 said:

I live in Colorado, been here a long time. Towing, not towing. Motor homes, towing, not towing. 

The best motor? Anybody can go fast down hill.

what about up hill? What’s your current rig? 

[avspin]

I went form a 5.3 to 6.2.  I can tell you pulling my boat up to Tahoe was tough on the 5.3, getting passed, struggling uphill.  Going to the 6.2 was a big difference for me.  Like most, 99% of the time I'm not towing and I love the driving the 6.2.  I also have an Audi as my daily drive but enjoy the truck more.  Having the ability to turn off the DFM also makes a big change from stock.  Unfortunately, I have to remove the Pulsar LT every year for smog.

[Z71RAD88]

8 minutes ago, avspin said:

I went form a 5.3 to 6.2.  I can tell you pulling my boat up to Tahoe was tough on the 5.3, getting passed, struggling uphill.  Going to the 6.2 was a big difference for me.  Like most, 99% of the time I'm not towing and I love the driving the 6.2.  I also have an Audi as my daily drive but enjoy the truck more.  Having the ability to turn off the DFM also makes a big change from stock.  Unfortunately, I have to remove the Pulsar LT every year for smog.

Thank you for your reply. 

[4banger]

On 5/13/2024 at 10:04 AM, Z71RAD88 said:

I’ll be the first to the party as one of the v8 lovers, a 4 cyl turbo ain’t my jam. 

Naturally aspirated engines lose 3% power per 1000’ elevation. Turbo motors 0.05% per 1000’. 
 

At around 5000’ the 2.7 has about 90 ft/lbs more torque at 1100 less rpm than the 5.3 and within about 5hp. 
 

Me (2.7 HO) and my hunting and fishing buddy (5.3 2014) have both and pull a few thousand lb cargo trailers set up for hunting and fishing. Sometimes we only take one rig and his comments when in mine are how quiet it is and more relaxed on hills. I usually take a few less liters on fill ups when travelling together also. 
 

2.7 is basically the love child of the 3.0 and the 5.3. But no lifters, no heavier 10 spd as no need with the torque curve of turbo and no def fluid or emissions headaches that come with diesels. There are more wins for the turbo but those are just some key ones not to mention most reliable and lowest cost of total ownership of maybe all half ton motors period not just GM. Still smile every time I drive my truck at the effortless quiet low rpm power and when I wanna get in a hurry it’s impressive. My poor trailer does a lot of 75-80mph runs to get those lines soaking for the weekend lol and I couldn’t be happier with it. Would not go back to a na vehicle and not a diesel fan either although my trailer has two diesel heaters so I’m a fan of those. No emissions crap on those to worry about lol. 
 

I’d get over your aversion to boost and single turbo long stroke big jug inlines(cummins) as those are truck engines. The 5.3/6.2 are short stroke camaro engines. The 2.7 is the smartest choice period in half tons but especially so for higher elevation and actual truck work involved.

Shots fired.

[PunchT37]

I am a V8 fanboy, first. No balance shaft needed. BUT, I`ll make an argument for the 2.7 4 cyl.

 

I`ll leave the diesel out. 1`st, no one has a problem with Ford`s 2.7 turbo v6. A 2.7 is a 2.7. If one can get the air in and out. The GM 2.7 has a long stroke and 5 main bearings to hold 4 cylinders. The Ford has 4 mains to hold 6 cylinders. As Jason Samko says, "let the reality of that sink in".

 

So, for truck duty, hill climb, towing, the GM 2.7 has more crank support and a long stroke to make an earlier and flatter torque curve. The curve is what matters, not peak numbers in a magazine.

 

So, for the OP`s original question, a V8 fanboy made an argument for the 2.7 GM engine.

[Bikerjon]

On 5/12/2024 at 5:53 PM, Z71RAD88 said:

I’m trying my best to educate myself on torque, horsepower, transmissions and gas verse diesel. I’m going to be shopping for a new 1500 as I do not tow anything nor have plans too. 
 

My employer is fortunate enough to have a spare company vehicle that’s a GMC 1500 with the 6.2 10 speed and that thing just cruises up Donner Summit in Northern California going to Nevada. It never downshifts it seems to have plenty of power to climb the hill. 
 

My question to the group - how much of climb is because of engine or the 10 speed being able to find the right gear, or is it both? If it’s the transmission being able to keep the truck is the right gear, would selecting the 5.3 allow me to not notice the difference? Or even better would the 3.0 diesel do better with turbos not being impacted by altitude and more torque down low? 
 

I do other vacations and trips in the mountains as well which would be loaded down with my wife and three kids. And a pick up bed and most likely camper shell filled with crappola. 
 

And yes, I’m typing this post in the garage on Mother’s Day otherwise I’d be in trouble for being on my phone.

6.2 all the way. Youve driven one. You already know. You need to use primo but you will smile every time you put your foot into it.

[4banger]

1 hour ago, Bikerjon said:

6.2 all the way. Youve driven one. You already know. You need to use primo but you will smile every time you put your foot into it.

Expensive smiles

 

depending on budget they may be more like grimaces lol

 

had one for a few weeks, hauls ass and sucks gas, front end feels heavy and wallowee compared to light agile front end on the 4banger