Jump to content

5.3 vs 3.0 longevity

ryanm33
 Share

Recommended Posts

ryanm33 Enthusiast

ryanm33

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am looking at upgrading my 2015 Silverado 5.3l with 190,000 km’s(118,000 miles) without any issues 🤞. I have come across 2 trucks that I am interested in. A 2025 elevation with the 3.0 Duramax, with 20,000 km(12,500 miles) and a 2024 elevation with 10,000 km(6000 miles). I see lots of posts praising the better fuel efficiency of the 3.0, but what about longevity? I keep my vehicles for 10-12 years and average 200,000kms. I know the 5.3 is tried and true, but has some lifter issues. Will the Duramax last me 10-12 years? I am fairly meticulous with routine maintenance ( oil changes, transmission fluid changes). Any input on the longevity of these engines would be appreciated.  
 

I drive about  20,000 km per year. About 50/50 city/ highway, my daily commute to work is 25 km( 15 miles) each way. 

Edited by ryanm33
  • ryanm33 changed the title to 5.3 vs 3.0 longevity
redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted (edited)

We don't know.

There haven't been building 3.0's for that many years yet.

(and the 5.3 ishad changes less than 10 years ago too) 

 

The earlier LM2's had the oil bump belt changed scheduled for 150,000 miles (240,000 km)

The from 2023 to current, the 3.0 is an LZO with belt replacement scheduled for 200,000 miles (When you 3.0 gets to 200,000 miles, (320,000 km)

 

I'd say (124,000 miles) 200,000 km is a pretty safe bet.  

 

 

There are some that have already had a belt change.

 

 

Edited by redwngr
Atlas Senior Enthusiast

Atlas

Posted
Posted

Fewer parts? The 3.0 has 2 fewer cylinders, one less head, 8 fewer spark plugs, only one exhaust manifold instead of two, and doesn't have DFM garbage 😉

 

The LZ0 Duramax has a fully forged crank, steel pistons. It's built very well, but it's also subjected to higher pressures than a 5.3. All the makings of a long lasting small diesel are there...but time will tell.

PunchT37 Enthusiast

PunchT37

Posted
Posted

I stand by my statement. For all machines.

 

Back to the 3.0 vs 5.3. Pull the engines and put em on a stand and see the parts difference. Pull the rear cover and valve cover off the 3.0. Not to mention the coolant controls and added turbo parts.

Z45 Senior Enthusiast

Z45

Posted
Posted (edited)

Longevity is a function of individual ownership of the vehicle.  Some can get many years of useful life while others can make it junk in a few years.  

Edited by Z45
PunchT37 Enthusiast

PunchT37

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Z45 said:

Longevity is a function of individual ownership of the vehicle.  Some can get many years of useful life while others can make it junk in a few years.  

True dat. But, complexity with lack of maintenance means doom comes quicker.

PunchT37 Enthusiast

PunchT37

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Atlas said:

Fewer parts? The 3.0 has 2 fewer cylinders, one less head, 8 fewer spark plugs, only one exhaust manifold instead of two, and doesn't have DFM garbage 😉

 

The LZ0 Duramax has a fully forged crank, steel pistons. It's built very well, but it's also subjected to higher pressures than a 5.3. All the makings of a long lasting small diesel are there...but time will tell.

I wouldn’t use a forged crank as a qualifier. How bout the 5.3 vs the 6.2?

 

Yeah, I know forged is tougher than cast, but…

Atlas Senior Enthusiast

Atlas

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, ryanm33 said:

What about reliability of the emissions system?

 

Loaded question. You'll soon get all kinds of responses about how emissions have ruined modern diesels and it's all a problematic, unreliable nightmare AND its a government conspiracy designed to cost the consumer money. All while George Soros rides around in a jet and a farmer with a diesel tractor is put out of business because of DEF issues.

 

Most of the evidence is anecdotal and spiteful. My anecdotal evidence, having owned a few different modern diesels, is I've never had an issue. Whether by luck or just good maintenance, I've not had problems with SCR systems, EGR's or anything else. But I also don't modify my diesels or do things which cause issues like letting DEF go bad over seasons of no engine use, or using various fuel additives when the manufacturers say specifically don't do that. The reality few people talk about is the trucking industry and the billions of miles driven with SCR systems operational. For the most part people don't have problems, but it's certain you will hear about it when someone does. That provides a skew in both anecdotal evidence, and on forums, etc.

  • Like 2
Atlas Senior Enthusiast

Atlas

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, PunchT37 said:

I wouldn’t use a forged crank as a qualifier. How bout the 5.3 vs the 6.2?

 

Yeah, I know forged is tougher than cast, but…

 

Manufacturing defect

  • 1 month later...
Jus Cruisin Enthusiast

Jus Cruisin

Posted
Posted

So my 3.0l lasted exactly 5,403 miles. Engine siezed. Waiting for a replacement. No warning. Just a "ding" from the dash with "please restart engine" or something like that. 

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
On 8/22/2025 at 1:11 PM, Atlas said:

 

Loaded question. You'll soon get all kinds of responses about how emissions have ruined modern diesels and it's all a problematic, unreliable nightmare AND its a government conspiracy designed to cost the consumer money. All while George Soros rides around in a jet and a farmer with a diesel tractor is put out of business because of DEF issues.

 

Most of the evidence is anecdotal and spiteful. My anecdotal evidence, having owned a few different modern diesels, is I've never had an issue. Whether by luck or just good maintenance, I've not had problems with SCR systems, EGR's or anything else. But I also don't modify my diesels or do things which cause issues like letting DEF go bad over seasons of no engine use, or using various fuel additives when the manufacturers say specifically don't do that. The reality few people talk about is the trucking industry and the billions of miles driven with SCR systems operational. For the most part people don't have problems, but it's certain you will hear about it when someone does. That provides a skew in both anecdotal evidence, and on forums, etc.

I don’t know how I missed this. In 1999 we sold our ROW clearing business. One of my brothers went along to run it for the new owner. The new owner really nails down cost. He loves spreadsheets. We only used diesel trucks. Fast forward to now. My brother and his son run 19 crews. The only diesel’s they run now are for pulling. Some crews use the smaller skid steer clearing machines. Emissions ruin the diesel trucks. Most needed to be deleted or serviced at around 100K miles. Diesel trucks went from being the most efficient most reliable trucks for work. To being more trouble than a gas work truck. I saw the 25 year transformation taking place. Most of his crews idle down pipelines during the day sometimes rarely being shut off. Then about a 20 minute ride to a motel for a ten day shift. Then a up to a 8 hour drive home. The emissions on diesel’s don’t like that. It’s a simple spreadsheet work project for the owner. It’s nothing other than cost analysis. Gas has taken over the least cost to run for longevity. There’s at least 5 backup trucks to rotate in service. They don’t start considering replacing until several hundred thousand miles. My other brother from the business I retired from runs gas service trucks. When I left 12 years ago it was diesel. No conspiracy, no agenda. 

Atlas Senior Enthusiast

Atlas

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, KARNUT said:

I don’t know how I missed this. In 1999 we sold our ROW clearing business. One of my brothers went along to run it for the new owner. The new owner really nails down cost. He loves spreadsheets. We only used diesel trucks. Fast forward to now. My brother and his son run 19 crews. The only diesel’s they run now are for pulling. Some crews use the smaller skid steer clearing machines. Emissions ruin the diesel trucks. Most needed to be deleted or serviced at around 100K miles. Diesel trucks went from being the most efficient most reliable trucks for work. To being more trouble than a gas work truck. I saw the 25 year transformation taking place. Most of his crews idle down pipelines during the day sometimes rarely being shut off. Then about a 20 minute ride to a motel for a ten day shift. Then a up to a 8 hour drive home. The emissions on diesel’s don’t like that. It’s a simple spreadsheet work project for the owner. It’s nothing other than cost analysis. Gas has taken over the least cost to run for longevity. There’s at least 5 backup trucks to rotate in service. They don’t start considering replacing until several hundred thousand miles. My other brother from the business I retired from runs gas service trucks. When I left 12 years ago it was diesel. No conspiracy, no agenda. 

 

Yeah, how did you miss that? It's interesting, all the fleets that still run diesel where they need it. Maybe those fleet managers are just stupid and haven't ascended to the level of intelligence that your brother has. Clearly people still find a lot of value in diesel trucks.

 

But to that point, gas engines have really improved in power/efficiency with direct injection and turbos, now producing diesel-like torque down low and with cheaper fuel. The choice has become blurry in the light duty market. However, when you need 800, 1200 lb-ft of pulling power in a pickup, diesel is still the winning choice- even if there are a few more things to look after. The best solution isn't always the cheapest.

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Atlas said:

 

Yeah, how did you miss that? It's interesting, all the fleets that still run diesel where they need it. Maybe those fleet managers are just stupid and haven't ascended to the level of intelligence that your brother has. Clearly people still find a lot of value in diesel trucks.

 

But to that point, gas engines have really improved in power/efficiency with direct injection and turbos, now producing diesel-like torque down low and with cheaper fuel. The choice has become blurry in the light duty market. However, when you need 800, 1200 lb-ft of pulling power in a pickup, diesel is still the winning choice- even if there are a few more things to look after. The best solution isn't always the cheapest.

Maybe you can see through your obvious hatred that I actually mentioned what they’re still good for. After actually witnessing the change over the years. I didn’t mention the hundreds of customers who pass through our business who actually have experience the same change over. If you can manage to read the words I actually wrote they still use them where needed. There’re not as cost effective as in the past. My words are from experience. Not I heard it somewhere from someone. Maybe you can learn something if you don’t have preconceived notions to have put KARNUT in his place. If the attempt to throw shade in your first paragraph was removed you’ll see we pretty much said the same thing. I didn’t mention the horsepower or TQ ratings because that’s a gimme since the beginning of the horsepower wars. What’s new is the loss of usefulness in the business world. I come from the business world and pass the experience from my eyes. No graphs, not a one off. Maybe if you put away your obvious distain you may get enlighten. You seem to only pick up words that may make your point. Even if the true meaning is right there in front of you. So I’ll wait for your next attempt to insult. But once again I’ll remind you that we pretty much said the same thing. 

Edited by KARNUT

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   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 442 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

  • 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...