Is GMC ever going to upgrade the 5.3L?

BringTheRain403 · August 31, 2019

Esso and Mobil here charge 20 cents per litre (80 cents per gallon) more for premium but it has no ethanol and has their full additive package in it. I haven't checked what Shell charges. Depending on who supplies Costco, it may or may not have ethanol and it will most likely have the bare minimum of detergents or whatever other additives the government mandates.

The other problem with the 6.2 for me is the extra $7500 to go up from a trim level that has all the other features I want (RST or Elevation) to one in which you can get the 6.2 (LTZ or SLT).

Actually, Costco gas has a high detergent content. They are a licensed Top tier retailer.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Moend · August 31, 2019

5 hours ago, MacLaren said:

Yeah man, I'm really excited to go on a road trip now that I'm getting 22 around the house.

I think 24 - 26 mpg is within reach.

And man, these engines are so very responsive.

You will love it. Going to the glacier national park. I got as high as 29. That is mind boggling.

MacLaren · August 31, 2019

7 minutes ago, Moend said:

You will love it. Going to the glacier national park. I got as high as 29. That is mind boggling.

That's amazing!

Thank you.

bosro · August 31, 2019

On 8/30/2019 at 8:53 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

An internal combustion engine is a finite space in which to turn chemical energy into mechanical energy. How much mechanical energy you get from that space depends on only two things. The size of that space AND the efficiency in which that space converts the chemical potential to reality. In other words the motors displacement and it's thermal efficiency.

The evolution of a motor of a fixed displacement lays along the line of improved efficiencies and/or mechanical integrity.

The OP's complaint is power and in days gone by more power could also, and could still, come from increased rpm. It's how we cam to two cam four valve motors but such motors sacrifice thermal efficiency for mechanical advantage so the push has been to improve efficiency which slowed things down and once again the pushrod motor is in its element.

You could get 325 hp from 325 cubic inches at 7,200 rpm or the same power at 5,000 rpm and the difference would come from thermal efficiency. With that improvement in efficiency comes a quadratic improvement in mechanical integrity.

Such has been the evolution of the SBC. Was also the course for the Buick 3800 V6.

All the things people HATE about the way thermal efficiency was achieved is what converted a 200 hp gas hog dirty air motor of the early 60's into what it is today. What you have today is the RESULT of VVT and DGI and computer controlled fuel and spark mapping and the reliability comes from torque management and improved materials and geometries and a great deal on lower rpm. These power levels were achieved before 1965 from this displacement. but not at this level of mechanical integrity and thermal efficiency.

And still the OP and many like him are unappreciative and they will continue to ignorantly whine until the SBC goes the way of the 3800.

I don't understand dad! Man, I just can't hit him hard enough!

Ask a simple question,get something like this...

You are a hero,to yourself.

I really dont care....

I've got engineers at work too..

Think they r brilliant,but they r not.

U remind me of them.

Cpl_Punishment · August 31, 2019

3 hours ago, BringTheRain403 said:

Actually, Costco gas has a high detergent content. They are a licensed Top tier retailer.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I did not know that. Thanks.

PPK · August 31, 2019

I had a 2005 5.3 and you had to baby it to get 18 mpg. My 2018 will get 24 if you do that same drill. GM did it by improving efficiency and power by raising compression... along with variable timing and combustion chamber improvements. They also went from iron to al on the blocks which dropped a little weight.

My 2017 2.7 Ferd got 23.5 mpg. The ford has a little lower compression ratio.. four times the cams, two turbos and a lot of single points of failure that the GM does not have... The ford is AL and a little taller in the wind..

There is still plenty of life left in the basic architecture of theV6/8. Batteries and emissions will get it... unless an achates engine comes out of left field.

Grumpy Bear · September 12, 2019

On 8/31/2019 at 2:57 PM, bosro said:

Ask a simple question,get something like this...

You are a hero,to yourself.

I really dont care....

I've got engineers at work too..

Think they r brilliant,but they r not.

U remind me of them.

Me either!

:crackup:

You remind me of absolutely no one.

blckblt · September 12, 2019

I had a 2003 Chevy with a 5.3. Loved that truck. Drove great. Power was good. Extended cab and didn't fit rear facing car seat.

2009 Chevy 5.3 with 6 speed. Hated this truck. 6 speed was trash. As soon as my son went to a forward facing car seat it was gone.

2013 Toyota Tundra. Great truck. All kinds of power. MPG sucked. Wife didn't like the lack of features so traded just before 3 years.

2016 Ram Rebel (5.7). Great truck. Power is good. MPG slightly better than tundra. Like all the options. Just don't love the truck.

I test drove a 2019 Trailboss last winter (this was when it looked like the TB wasn't gong to get the 6.2) to see what the power was like. I didn't tow with it or have any weight in the bed but I was very surprised at how responsive and snappy the engine felt. It didn't feel like a huge step down from either of the 5.7 motors from Ram/Toyota. I think the extra tech and I am guessing lighter weight of the truck help.

I can only guess that the 10 speed in the 5.3 would be better but for me I will wait for the 6.2 in the trailboss.