How fast (slow lol) is the 5.3L 2WD

jaxcam02 · March 21, 2019

They come from the factory really toned down from their full potential. Correctly tuned for the street opens up a lot of potential for power and fuel economy. Add in bolt ons and your rolling pretty good.

wforrest08 · March 21, 2019

Jeeezz, I don’t understand why WE can’t have like 650 horse and 32 mpg from the factory for like $23,000 with leather buckets, 21” dash screen, 17 speed trans, and 28” wheels and run sub 10s in the 1/4. I mean like come on GM get with the program already...

L86 All Terrain · March 21, 2019

I am willing to bet a RCSB 5.3L would cross the line within 1 truck length with a CCSB 6.2L.

At the end of the day, what is the point? Are you building a street truck? Are you comparing a 5.3L to the 5L Ford or 5.7L Hemi? Are you trying to find the fastest truck you can for as little as possible? Are you trying to find the best platform to start a build with? What are you trying to figure out here? Kind of a pointless thread to just ask how slow or fast a truck is without using the information given to help you to arrive at a certain conclusion. They are buy no means slow, but they aren't fast either. 355hp in a RCSB is a pretty potent set up, more so if you choose to build off that.

swathdiver · March 21, 2019

18 hours ago, GN2018 said:

Agree. I once owned a Buick Grand National. In stock trim, I took it to the track and got mid 15’s for the quarter mile. Pros we’re getting it to just slightly under 15. Now a full size truck is getting into the 15s. That’s not slow.

Non intercooled right? First time out with my '86 GN was 13.69!

Run E85 on those L83s and pick up 27 horses and 33 foot pounds of torque. That's good for about two to three tenths and 2-3 mph in the quarter mile.

SierraHD17 · March 21, 2019

Add a couple degrees of ignition timing and run something that isnt the cheapest gas you can buy and the 5.3 is leaps and bounds stronger. People keep buying them as is so why change lol. I mean GM could introduce hand crank start and you would have 20 guys on here talk about how much more reliable it is than a starter motor lol.

18ShortBed · March 22, 2019

23 hours ago, L86 All Terrain said:

I am willing to bet a RCSB 5.3L would cross the line within 1 truck length with a CCSB 6.2L.

At the end of the day, what is the point? Are you building a street truck? Are you comparing a 5.3L to the 5L Ford or 5.7L Hemi? Are you trying to find the fastest truck you can for as little as possible? Are you trying to find the best platform to start a build with? What are you trying to figure out here? Kind of a pointless thread to just ask how slow or fast a truck is without using the information given to help you to arrive at a certain conclusion. They are buy no means slow, but they aren't fast either. 355hp in a RCSB is a pretty potent set up, more so if you choose to build off that.

Nah ... I'm not building a race truck.

Just wished the 5.3l wasn't dead last.

GN2018 · March 22, 2019

21 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Non intercooled right? First time out with my '86 GN was 13.69!

No. It was an '87 and it was intercooled. I just didn't really hammer it. I'm no race car driver, just had it for fun. At 13.69, you probably got off the line very well. That's a good run.

Still, at 1-2 seconds difference for a truck, it's hard to call the truck slow.

swathdiver · March 22, 2019

34 minutes ago, GN2018 said:

No. It was an '87 and it was intercooled. I just didn't really hammer it. I'm no race car driver, just had it for fun. At 13.69, you probably got off the line very well. That's a good run.

Still, at 1-2 seconds difference for a truck, it's hard to call the truck slow.

Yes, that run was a 2.00 short time on radials. Once I switched over to Radial T/A she would average 1.76 with a best of 1.72 on radials.

My '85 GN's first pass was 15.48 @ 89.83 with a 2.3 short time, no posi. Back out with a posi and chip it would do 2.0s sixty foots running 14.30s and got it to average 1.82 with a sears radial tire later on. Fun stuff.

The Yukon XL does 2.5XX sixty foots with 2WD launches on KO2s. She puts out 307 horsepower at the rear wheels through the traps.

These LS engines are awesome and get up to triple digits in no time at all. The capabilities of these trucks today was beyond my imagination back when the Buicks were new.

With the GN, we were going fast with class. Luxury car that was comfortable, lightning fast, economical and drove and raced them cross country. Now we have trucks weighing twice as much and nearly as fast that can do all that plus tow and go off roading!

Racindave · March 22, 2019

Back in my drag racing days, a stock 5.0 mustang would run 15 second qtr mile times. Now i can run it in a stock fully loaded 4 door truck that gets 20 plus mpg..... I’ll take it. We’ve got it good and just don’t realize it.....

KARNUT · March 22, 2019

I had a 94 impala ss, a 94 z28, a 85 mustang gt at the same time. I was in hot rod heaven. My Camry will out run 2 of those, my wife's Geneses will out run them all. The 6.2 Chevy truck will out run all of those, the 5.3 in certain configurations would come close or ahead too. Slow, I think not.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Colossus · March 22, 2019

Why do people feel the need to compare today's performance to vehicles from 20 years ago?

KARNUT · March 22, 2019

Why do people feel the need to compare today's performance to vehicles from 20 years ago?

I thought they were fast for their time and were. What do people want a 12 second truck? Well you can, by ordering right and very little mods. Saying vehicles today are slow is laughable. Just proves people are never satisfied. Then you add fuel mileage, geez get real.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SS502 · March 22, 2019

14 minutes ago, Colossus said:

Why do people feel the need to compare today's performance to vehicles from 20 years ago?

Because we can’t compare them to what is coming 20 years from now...

SierraHD17 · March 22, 2019

1 hour ago, Colossus said:

Why do people feel the need to compare today's performance to vehicles from 20 years ago?

Because they like to stay in the past and reminisce about 190 hp 305s and 245 hp 350s lol. One would hope with the head flow, chamber design, cam sizes and compression ratios these late model engines have they would accomplish something. It's pretty lackluster in some departments but oh well.

HeySkippyDog · March 22, 2019

Because they like to stay in the past and reminisce about 190 hp 305s and 245 hp 350s lol. One would hope with the head flow, chamber design, cam sizes and compression ratios these late model engines have they would accomplish something. It's pretty lackluster in some departments but oh well.

To be fair, Ford and Dodge didn't have engine options back then that were much different from what GM offered in half ton trucks. The 350's lifespan was downright impressive. The early 90s SVT Lightning 351 didn't really put up numbers too far from a 350!

The TBI 350 was 210 HP/ 300 Ft-Lb (increased in '96 when they brought out the Vortec) and the 351 Ford was 240 HP/ 340 Ft-Lb, but that was their *performance* engine with upgraded heads. It really wasn't that special! The lowly GM 350 could be had in just about anything. 30 HP isn't going to be that noticeable in a truck.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Tapatalk