GMT K2xx Trucks General Discussion 2014+ Trucks | General Discussion

Pre 2014 6.2 vs. Ecotec 5.3

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 22, 2016 | 05:08 PM
  #1  
MINK's Avatar
Thread Starter
Teching In
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Default Pre 2014 6.2 vs. Ecotec 5.3

I think we can all agree the 6.2 is a beast and the latest version is only getting stronger. With that being said the new 5.3 is no slouch with it's 355HP. So just how far behind is it compared to the older 6.2? Has anyone owned both?
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2016 | 06:44 PM
  #2  
Camaraderie's Avatar
Staging Lane
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by MINK
I think we can all agree the 6.2 is a beast and the latest version is only getting stronger. With that being said the new 5.3 is no slouch with it's 355HP. So just how far behind is it compared to the older 6.2? Has anyone owned both?

I wouldn't think they're be a world of a difference . I have only owned 5.3 . I would imagine the 6.2 has more torque and worse gas mileage than the 5.3
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2016 | 11:51 PM
  #3  
Jordan927's Avatar
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
From: Victoria BC Canada
Default

the new 5.3 vs the old one is night and day. As for the 6.2L I have never owned one. But I imagine the extra 50 hp and 30 ft-lbs would still be pretty noticeable under your right foot.

Problem with the 6.2L is that you have to pick certain options that I wouldn't want, to get that package...not sure if its like that for you guys State side....but GM Canada makes me choose stuff I dont want, or between suff I do, like between a 6.2L and heated and cooled seats.

Sorry, but cold air on my hoop wins over the 6.2L
Reply
Old Jan 24, 2016 | 12:42 AM
  #4  
ZO6Ted's Avatar
TECH Junkie
15 Year Member
Loved
Liked
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,310
Likes: 266
From: Arlington, TX
Default

All RCSB bone stock. My 05 2wd 5.3 A4 3.73 ran 9.84. My 07 4x4 5.3 3.42 ran 10.39. My 14 5.3 4x4 A6 ran 9.13.
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2016 | 04:48 PM
  #5  
MINK's Avatar
Thread Starter
Teching In
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Jordan927
the new 5.3 vs the old one is night and day. As for the 6.2L I have never owned one. But I imagine the extra 50 hp and 30 ft-lbs would still be pretty noticeable under your right foot.

Problem with the 6.2L is that you have to pick certain options that I wouldn't want, to get that package...not sure if its like that for you guys State side....but GM Canada makes me choose stuff I dont want, or between suff I do, like between a 6.2L and heated and cooled seats.

Sorry, but cold air on my hoop wins over the 6.2L
Yep, same thing down here! GM could blow toyota out of the game if it offered the big gun in lower optioned trucks, or how about a RC 2WD !
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2016 | 04:51 PM
  #6  
MINK's Avatar
Thread Starter
Teching In
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by ZO6Ted
All RCSB bone stock. My 05 2wd 5.3 A4 3.73 ran 9.84. My 07 4x4 5.3 3.42 ran 10.39. My 14 5.3 4x4 A6 ran 9.13.
Wow...that a fine running 5.3! I would guess the 1/4 mile equivalent would be low 14's,...nice!
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2016 | 05:10 PM
  #7  
Jordan927's Avatar
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
From: Victoria BC Canada
Default

Originally Posted by MINK
Yep, same thing down here! GM could blow toyota out of the game if it offered the big gun in lower optioned trucks, or how about a RC 2WD !
Preaching to the choir man.
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2016 | 08:35 PM
  #8  
ZO6Ted's Avatar
TECH Junkie
15 Year Member
Loved
Liked
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,310
Likes: 266
From: Arlington, TX
Default

Originally Posted by MINK
Wow...that a fine running 5.3! I would guess the 1/4 mile equivalent would be low 14's,...nice!
Thank you. I was very surprised!
Reply
Old Jun 27, 2020 | 10:56 PM
  #9  
joshua99ta's Avatar
Staging Lane
 
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Likes: 9
Default

just bc they say you can pull it doesnt mean you should. Kind of like some of the L5P(and other diesel folks) talking about hooking to 30,000lb loads. Yep it may do it, doesn't mean it should be done.
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2020 | 05:38 PM
  #10  
00pooterSS's Avatar
TECH Junkie
15 Year Member
Loved
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (40)
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,193
Likes: 261
From: Dallas
Default

The gen 5 5.3 bone stock, on e85 makes similar power to the previous gen 6.2 (per gm's stock numbers)
Interestingly it makes 20 less hp but 1 less tq.

6.2 403/417
I'm not exactly sure what octane those numbers are but GM recommends minimum 91 on those engines. So it should be with 91

Gen 5 5.3 on 87 is 355/383 and e85 is 380/416
So on premium fuel the numbers would be somewhere in between

But as far as how the truck will perform... the newer truck can also be had with an 8 speed that would help close the gap.

I went through this a ton when I got my current truck. I was flip flopping between my current truck and a 2013 denali with a 6.2 and until I saw the OE numbers for the 5.3 on e85 I was leaning toward the 2013 truck. I'm so so so so happy I did not end up with that truck.

May not matter to most people what the e85 numbers are but I have e85 close to home and run e85 at all times. With intake headers exhaust and a tune on e85 this little motor is really impressive.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42 AM.