07-08 6.2 (380hp) vs 09 6.2 (403hp) - What's different?
07-19-2011, 02:36 PM
#1
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Little Elm, TX
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-08 6.2 (380hp) vs 09 6.2 (403hp) - What's different?
07-08 6.2 (380hp) vs 09 6.2 (403hp) - What's different?
What's the difference between the two? Is it just tuning? I thought they were all 403hp.
What's the difference between the two? Is it just tuning? I thought they were all 403hp.
07-19-2011, 02:58 PM
#2
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a good question. I also remember that when the 6.2 L92 first came out (in the Escalade in '07) it was rated at 403hp and the Yukon Denali only 381 or so. It seems that AFM isn't the difference between the two ratings either because some of the AFM equipped engines also get the 403hp rating.
07-19-2011, 03:03 PM
#3
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Little Elm, TX
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a good question. I also remember that when the 6.2 L92 first came out (in the Escalade in '07) it was rated at 403hp and the Yukon Denali only 381 or so. It seems that AFM isn't the difference between the two ratings either because some of the AFM equipped engines also get the 403hp rating.
07-19-2011, 03:05 PM
#4
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trucks, no AFM
SUVs, AFM
This is at least the case for the last two model years, not sure about earlier than that.
ETA:
Check the GM powertrain website they separate the engines by year and RPO code. Pretty good info there.
07-19-2011, 03:07 PM
#5
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Little Elm, TX
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know most everyone gets it tuned out cause they have exhaust and the 4 cylinders sound funny but if it changes my mpg by 6-7mpg - I think I would keep it on!
07-19-2011, 03:12 PM
#6
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2011 should be RPO code L9H (like my truck) and will not come with AFM (which I like). Was it an AWD model? I bet those aren't too good on fuel economy. When my truck was stock I got 1 tank where I averaged 16.4 but had to keep it around 65 on the highway.
07-19-2011, 03:16 PM
#7
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Over Yunder
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about the 6.2, but when I had the 5.3 with 4 cylinder mode, I tuned it out and tuned for horsepower and only lost 1mpg. It never really stayed in 4 cyl mode long and thats on alot of hwy driving.
Trending Topics
07-19-2011, 03:19 PM
#8
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Little Elm, TX
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first bought my RCSB 5.3 with AFM, it was getting 20-21mpg, i put longtubes and tune on it and only saw 15-16 after that.
07-19-2011, 05:35 PM
#9
Launching!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: CENTEX
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i got a 6.2 ccsb 4x4 all terrain with 342s and i am seeing on average 16.5. best tank to date is 21 and worst is 11. it's all about how hard you are on that right pedal!!!!!!!!!! mine does not have AFM and is flex fuel and rated at 403/417. if you even think about starting to have fun with this beast it gets thirsty!!!!!! if i had it to do over again i would still get the 6.2. i might spend an extra 80-90 bucks a month but i think that is worth it. i can only imagine how bad the AWD trucks use the fuel.
