Jump to content

5.3 = What Ci? 323, 324, 327?

99silverado1500

Recommended Posts

99silverado1500 Senior Enthusiast

99silverado1500

Posted
Posted

What cubic inch is the 5.3 liter motor. I did a google search, and I found places that said its 323, some said 324, and a few said 327, I always thought it was a 327, and I did a 327 search and it showed 5.3, but Advance auto lists it as a 323 ci. Someone please clear it up, i need a definate answer.

pwall Senior Enthusiast

pwall

Posted
Posted

<useless information on>

Let's for just a brief moment, get technical.....

 

5.3 liter = 323.425 843 702 cubic inch, however....

323 cubic inch = 5.293 021 672 liter

 

So, is 5.3 rounded up, or rounded down.

327 cubic inch = 5.358 569 928 liter

 

Could GM have just rounds 5.385xxxx to 5.3 ? But they could have called it then a 5.4 (no...too close to Ford).

 

But it could be a 325...

325 cubic inch = 5.325 795 8 liter (rounded off nicely would be 5.3l).

</useless information off>

 

Who cares! I'm from a metric county. 5.3l works. :)

Zembonez Senior Enthusiast

Zembonez

Posted
Posted

1 liter = 61.0237441 cubic inches but we don't really know if it is actually a 5.3 liter engine unless we compute it from the actual bore and stroke figures...

 

Hey man, check out my 323.42585!

 

Jeez... what the hell happened to my 350?

Mark_in_Tulsa Senior Enthusiast

Mark_in_Tulsa

Posted
Posted

The bore is 3.72 the stroke is 3.62

That equals 324.991 cubic inches.

5.323 liters.

 

I told some kid who had a 327 SS stickers all over his truck, that it wasn't a 327, and he didn't say something very nice back to me.

C & A s Dad Senior Enthusiast

C & A s Dad

Posted
Posted

Ryan, I have to agree with you about the # 327 sounding much better. Besides, I am an old guy and 327 acually means something to me where 323 does not. Try saying 423 instead of 427, it just does not have the same manly ring.

dlstewart01 Senior Enthusiast

dlstewart01

Posted
Posted

None of the cu in numbers over the years have been dead on. 265, 283, 327, 348, 409, 350, 396, ect .none of these were actual sizes. They were just the approxment numbers that GM assigned them. Its no big deal.

 

Have a great day,

 

Don

trever1t Enthusiast

trever1t

Posted
Posted
The bore is 3.72 the stroke is 3.62

That equals 324.991 cubic inches.

5.323 liters.

 

I told some kid who had a 327 SS stickers all over his truck, that it wasn't a 327, and he didn't say something very nice back to me.

 

 

Bingo. 325 is close to the correct number. The 5.3L is not a 327 or even close to a 327. Not even related to a 327. The LS1 is 347.

cc1999 Enthusiast

cc1999

Posted
Posted

I was always under the impression that it was related to the old 327, kinda like a modern day version, but I did know its real displacment was 325, but I like to call it a 327 just the same as many others do. It does kind of remind me of the old 327s, high on horse power and fast reving, but lacking in lowend torque and pulling power. Great in the 1/4 mile though .

Zembonez Senior Enthusiast

Zembonez

Posted
Posted
The bore is 3.72 the stroke is 3.62

That equals 324.991 cubic inches.

5.323 liters.

 

I told some kid who had a 327 SS stickers all over his truck, that it wasn't a 327, and he didn't say something very nice back to me.

 

Could have been your OU sticker. Do you know Wingnut?

 

heheh

 

HOOK'EM

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • KARNUT
      Missing thrust bearing? And oil selection

      By KARNUT · Posted

      I find it amusing the OP doesn’t realize this threads heading includes several engines. He should have posted in the off topic section if he wanted a more narrow focus. I really appreciate and find amusing that he actually pointed out one of my many vehicles. The Odyssey. That happens to use 0-20 oil. I love pushing his buttons. 
    • Black02Silverado
      Missing thrust bearing? And oil selection

      By Black02Silverado · Posted

      Maybe, but it seems he is the only one that has backed up data to prove what he is stating. I think he is doing this more because he enjoys it and wants to get the information out to us. He's got the knowledge and access to the proper equipment and having the funds doesn't hurt.  I would love to do what he is doing and would do it if and when I hit the Powerball.  I'm not a Tribologist by any means but love to learn what I can.   I would bet there would be doubting people out there if a completely independent lab with high quality work and highly respected in the automotive industry, put out information like this.  The world can't be pleased, one just has to take the information that they are given, do more of their own research to find actual lab data to back up what they are trying to figure/find out.  Most don't bother, they just want to believe what they first see.     I don't have the minimax but my 6.2 in my 2019 Silverado with 64k miles shows excellent UOA results with 0w-20 and for my own purposes 5w-20.  Since not much of a change using 5w. I liked the data sheet information on the SS 5w-20 and figured I would give it a try.  Still the same viscosity at 100℃.   In the end we all just do what makes us happy, life is too short to get upset over trivial social media.   On a side note, I do feel GM has dropped the ball and just cares about the bottom dollar and not quality anymore.  "Like a Rock" has been long gone.  Seems "Built Ford Tough" has as well.
    • Tyler Gibbs
      Thoughts on these wheels?

      By Tyler Gibbs · Posted

      Better than stock but that's like putting lipstick on a pig
    • flattop
      2026 sierra bad brake controller

      By flattop · Posted

      Hello, my 3 month old Sierra Elevation wont recognize a trailer with electric brakes? All the lights work correctly, but no power to the brakes?   This is the factory installed brake controller. If you manually push the knob, the display shows the power % but does not light up like my 2022 silverado.   I have an appointment with the dealer, but was checking to see if anyone else has seen this issue.    Thanks, 
    • Black02Silverado
      Post your latest oil change.

      By Black02Silverado · Posted

      Been using SS 0w-20 from new, but wanted to change to the 5w-20 because I liked the data on the data sheet, to me it seems like a little better product. But as you can see, not much difference. This is also with running a mix of 10 gallons E85 to a tank topped with 93. It isn't a flex fuel vehicle so any higher I get a CEL for running lean on both banks. Yes my mileage takes a hit. Instead of 20 mpg I normally get on trips I get 17mpg. This is also using EaO17 filter.  What is amazing is I have the AMSOIL cone filter on it since I have the GM Performance intake installed and that air filter has 44k miles on it.  I just take it out and shop vac it off once a year.  I use the upholstery tool on my shop vac.  Works well.   

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...