Help Sierra/Silverado 1500 5.3L or 6.2L

[USAtraveler]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

My point is jd powers is honest, and that is who we continously improve to. You really need to drill through the data though to understand how really close all the top 10 are. I will only defend when untrue statements are made and give factual info.

I didn't quote JD Powers for a couple of reasons. First, their rating, as you posted, is based on the 2016 model year ONLY. Consumer Reports looks at 5 years and gives a rating for each year based on 17 different factors, plus a single aggregate rating for all 5 years. JDP lumps rating factors into just 5 areas, but doesn't say how the factors are weighted, if at all, when combined. Also, when you look at JDP's disclosures on how they come up with their ratings, you realize they are making some arbitrary decisions on what base info to include from other studies, none of which is clearly specified. Interestingly enough, both JDP and CR give the Tundra top ratings. Having owned all three at one time or another, Chevy, Ford, and Tundra, I honestly liked all of them. But of the three, I'd agree the Tundra was the best.

[dznf0g]

You missed something. While powers does an initial quality study, this was their 3 year durability study of 2013s, performed in 2016. Also, there is much more to their studies than you can get in the public facing sites. I got an internal management summary of the great amount of detail we pay for, last week. I am not comfortable listing the detail as it is their intellectual property and confidential between paying client and them. This is where they make their money...they are not a CONSUMER company, per se. But trust me, power is a science and we live and breathe it. CR we just use for marketing when we show well, just like everyone else in the industry.

[dznf0g]

Jdp also does a 5 year durability study as well. I haven't counted , but there are at least a half dozen different studies we use.

[Silver.Sanctuary]

Originally Posted by JCWDCW

What is the rear end ratio on your 5.3 choice? I would have a problem with 20+% increase in fuel costs over regular fuel.
I have a Dakota with the 4.7 and 3.55 rear end. It is capable but not in Mountains where you can't get speed up between hills. I live with the occasional 6-7% grade towing a '96 Excella 25 ft. It would be very good with the 3.92 ratio, but good mileage was more important when not towing when I bought the truck. Any one know what the HP/Torque ratings are for the 5.3. The older 5.3 engines were not as good as my 4.7, but that was 2003
JCW

I am surprised that there is not more discussion of rear end axle ratio on these threads. I think JCWDCW is exactly right on the assessment regarding the better performance towing with the 3.92 rear end. It is possible to change out these gears, but it is easier to buy the 'better' ratios with the original purchase. I think this is why Toyota owners are reporting being happy with performance of the 5.7 Tundra towing 25 and 27 foot AS trailers. With a 4.30 or 4.10 they do a great job. This is also why they don't pass up too many gas stations. My 2014 has a six speed transmission with 1:1 at the fourth gear. Clearly Toyota has two additional gears just to get "lousy" gas mileage on the road when not towing. I pull only a 22 foot Safari, and plan my mileage at 10.5 mpg towing. I think the best I have ever done is 12.5 on a long basically downhill stretch between western New Mexico and Tucson, AZ.

My 2014 Tundra has 10,000 miles (virtually all towing). I don't use it for a daily driver, and have to run the engine occasionally just to get the oil to coat the interior engine parts. With the performance of the vehicle towing, I am ecstatic. I can see why mileage could be a big consideration for someone using the TV as a daily driver.

The old Volkswagen Beetle used to get great gas mileage on the highway as it was geared to go like a bat out of hell on the freeway, but in New York it had trouble climbing a hill because of it's gearing. Going west out of Denver it was downright scary. Same concept here I think, but worse with a tow.

[Outdoorjojo]

Last year, We bought the 2016 Sierra 5.3 Denali because couldn't pass up a killer deal. It was an awesome everyday vehicle and get 18.3 combined mpg not towing and 12.5 towing 6800lbs. The 5.3 engine paired with 8spd tranny and 3.42 ratio is more than capable towing our 25' signature.

However, we got a huge problem. The door sticker says only 1485lbs left for our cargos including the tongue weight. We ran out payload due to all of the bling bling options came with the Denali package. I gotta have the Tri-mode power steps for my bad left leg which added significant weight to the truck. We have to be very careful about what we can bring with us and it was not fun at all. There some items we just can't put on the trailer like gas can, woods, 134lbs 3000w Honda generator..etc..
Wish I can put my wife and 2 big boys on the trailer too...joking...

We end up traded in and get the 2016 2500 6.6 Duramax Denali with Allison transmission and we never look back. Not mean to brag about our new TV but this thing is a beast and I love the engine brake feature.

All our weight headaches are solved.

I hope this will help you by learning from our mistake and deciding on your TV. My other TV candidate would be Sierra 6.2 engine with max towing package which give you additional 400lbs of payload.

BTW, We got 17.6 combined mpg NOT towing and 14.5 towing with our Duramax. We only got 4K miles so far. Picture down below is our 5.3 Denali, I wish I can keep them both.

Happy traveling!!!!

[gandttimes]

Originally Posted by JCWDCW

What is the rear end ratio on your 5.3 choice? I would have a problem with 20+% increase in fuel costs over regular fuel.
I have a Dakota with the 4.7 and 3.55 rear end. It is capable but not in Mountains where you can't get speed up between hills. I live with the occasional 6-7% grade towing a '96 Excella 25 ft. It would be very good with the 3.92 ratio, but good mileage was more important when not towing when I bought the truck. Any one know what the HP/Torque ratings are for the 5.3. The older 5.3 engines were not as good as my 4.7, but that was 2003
JCW

Rear end ratios have been brought up, however that is not the whole story. What needs to be discussed is overall ratio of the drive train.
Using Tundra as an example with the Tow package 4.30 rear ratio, and transmission first gear of 3.33, by multiplication , overall first gear is 14.319 to 1. GM max tow 3.42 multiplied by its first gear ratio in the 8 speed of 4.56 yields an overall ratio of 15.595 to one.
At the other end of the scale Toyota is 1to1 in 4th so is 4.30 overall where the GM is 1to1 in 6th and is 3.42 at that point.
This is why the extra gears pull better off the line and get far better mileage.
Top gear not towing in the Tundra is overall 2.52 and the GM is 2.22.
Again the reason for the better mileage.

[JCWDCW]

Originally Posted by gandttimes

Rear end ratios have been brought up, however that is not the whole story. What needs to be discussed is overall ratio of the drive train.
Using Tundra as an example with the Tow package 4.30 rear ratio, and transmission first gear of 3.33, by multiplication , overall first gear is 14.319 to 1. GM max tow 3.42 multiplied by its first gear ratio in the 8 speed of 4.56 yields an overall ratio of 15.595 to one.
At the other end of the scale Toyota is 1to1 in 4th so is 4.30 overall where the GM is 1to1 in 6th and is 3.42 at that point.
This is why the extra gears pull better off the line and get far better mileage.
Top gear not towing in the Tundra is overall 2.52 and the GM is 2.22.
Again the reason for the better mileage.

Point well made. However most of us don't research the overall Tranny ratios...probably should. I bought the Dakota because my wife couldn't climb into a full size truck..had one...not comfortable for her, never mind the extra climb. I tow with OD off so my final drive is 3.55 if the tranny is direct drive and torque converter is locked up. Trucks are easy to figure out. Front wheel drives maybe no so! I wish I had a newer vehicle with the big numbers of gears. Then the final drive is not so important. The engine finds a comfortable gear and goes with it. My Dakota has an intermediate gear using the OD and second gear planetaries, that is pretty useful on some grades as it ups the RPMS to mid 3000s However because it was designed as a passing gear it also drops out the torque converter, so when I tried to have the tranny reprogrammed to hold this gear in longer, I was told the Transmission would burn up with the extra heat generated by torque converter churn (Chrysler tech info)...so for now I live with 4500 RPM at the top of 6-7% grades. The rest of the travel is usually very good ...more than enough to haul my 25 ft. (Don't bother to write about down hill control...I have that covered..Seldom have to touch the brakes; also have a Hensley on this one ...did not on my previous 25..don't see any diff.)
JCW

[DC Bruce]

A couple of important points here:
1. The current GM 6.2 and 5.3 "Ecotec" engines were new for the 2014 model year, so comparisons with older engines of the same displacement are not particularly useful. The biggest difference is that both engines use direct injection into the cylinder for more power, torque and efficiency. Both have variable valve timing and cylinder deactivation under light load, although in full engine braking mode, all 8 cylinders are working. For the 2015 model year, an 8-speed transmission was introduced with the 6.2. For 2016, I believe it's furnished with both engines. Because of the wide spread of the transmission, it's no longer necessary to have a big selection of rear axle ratios. You get power and economy. The max trailer tow package gives you something like a 3:42; standard is something like a 3:13. Given that the weight of your Airstream is much less than the rated tow capacity of either of these combinations, the only reason to get the max trailer tow is the added 400 lbs. of payload. I have 50k+ miles on my 2015 GMC with the 6.2 and max trailer tow. No issues and about 35k miles towing coast to coast and full timing in the West. Under most conditions at 60 mph, the engine loafs along at 1750 rpm in 7th gear. Rarely exceeds 2500 rpm. Have had no vibration issues or hard shifting. Once in a while I was forced to buy lower octane fuel, which didn't seem to cause problems. I now routinely run mid grade when not towing, but still tow with premium. The high pressure fuel pump in GDI engines is sensitive to crappy gas, so I always buy major brand. I'm sure the 5.3 would be adequate for your needs; you'll just be working the engine harder sometimes and making more noise. Engine braking is usually better with larger displacement. In Canada, your fuel is more expensive; and at least in the U.S. The price spread between 91 octane and 87 or 89 varies a lot. In California, the price difference is negligible; on the East Coast, it's a lot. I don't think you'll have an appreciable difference in fuel economy. We do 11-14 towing at 55-60. I've done up to 23 not towing.