GM 5.3 L pickup motor

[Marty Gulseth]

Hope I'm not violating any terms of service or other here. Questions for anyone who has owned or has experience with these engines, please.

I have a long and mostly agreeable history with GM "small-block" V8s, 350 CI and 5.7l. The current pickup, '99 K2500 is getting a little old and tired, and I'm kinda-sorta looking for something newer. Do not intend to throw down the $$ for new. I spotted a possible candidate pickup, equipped with the 5.3 L V8. I use my pickup to tow a 19 ft aluminum fishing boat, probably 3000 - 4000 lb, and an older 23 ft travel trailer, about 4500 lb.

So, two questions:

1. Will the 5.3 handle the load when towing these rigs? (I don't tow for super long distances or at high speeds.)

2. Is the 5.3 as durable as the 5.7?

Advice appreciated!

Regards, Marty

[David Weaver]

No problem towing that weight. Can't comment on durability, though. FIL's 4.8 would probably tow those without issue.

[Biff Johnson]

Yes to both questions. The 23 foot trailer will probably labor a bit, just like it did with a 5.7L! (Disclaimer you didn't mention if the new pickup is 3/4 ton, 4x4, long bed, etc?)

[Craig Coney]

You also need to consider your gear ratio and trailer tongue weight. If you are towing in elevation, that will also decrease the rated towing capacity.

[Ben Hatcher]

4,000 lbs for a 19' aluminum fishing boat? That thing must be built like a tank.

[David C. Roseman]

4,000 lbs for a 19' aluminum fishing boat? That thing must be built like a tank.

Or Marty is one heckuva fisherman, and that's the weight returning from a good day on the water. :)

David

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Guys....a lot of people who fish the rivers in the Northwest use Jet boats or jet boat hulls which have a considerably thicker hull to withstand the swift waters and rocks in rivers. Often they are powered by car engines gasoline or diesel. I live 110 miles south of Marty. We have quite a number of jet boat manufacturers here in Lewiston, ID and they ship their boats as far a way as Nepal.

[Marty Gulseth]

You guys are too funny! 3000-4000 lb was an uneducated guess. It's an older Starcraft I bought used, and I'm pretty sure it has a thin aluminum skin over a plywood or other wood frame and hull lining.

And I usually come back lighter than I left the dock. Typically very few fish, much less fuel, and the beer was all...er...shall we say, "recycled" overboard...

Oh, and thanks for the insight on the pickup motors. Just gathering info for now. I tend to not rush on automobile purchases.

Thanks, regards,

Marty

[Stephen Cherry]

One thing to look for, the 2014 model will be a new 5.3 engine with direct fuel injection. Probably a great engine, but I am always a little apprehensive about the first year of anything.

I wouldn't hesitate about the weight. One thing I have learned about towing with my tired old 6 cylinder f150- if you don't have enough power, just slow down a little. You don't need to keep up with the Porsche in the next lane. Of course, the new trucks have vastly more power than mine, but the idea is still the same.

[Larry Edgerton]

Also, avoid the 5.3 motors with the injection system that drops cylinders to save fuel. They are a problem, have no real world advantage and are expensive to repair. A set of injectors for my 08 was 1700 dollars, replaced twice under warranty. I sold the truck as the end of the warranty approached. The regular 5.3 is a known dependable motor.

My new trucks are both Fords, and the non turbo V6 in the 150 is all you would need to haul a small boat, 315 HP, and gets 23mpg highway.

Larry

[Stephen Cherry]

My new trucks are both Fords, and the non turbo V6 in the 150 is all you would need to haul a small boat, 315 HP, and gets 23mpg highway.

Larry

I'm looking at that truck also, and that would be my first choice for engine.

[Mac McQuinn]

Larry,
That might be a bit optimistic, I believe they're rated at 302hp @6500 rpm. Torque peaks @ 4000 rpm. Seems a bit revy to me although the 6 speed trans should keep it on the boil. I miss the old inline six cylinder engines and feel apples to apples they work much better as a true truck engine. It's a shame the old 300 Ford 6 isn't still around and spec'd out with the modern engineering improvements.

Mac




My new trucks are both Fords, and the non turbo V6 in the 150 is all you would need to haul a small boat, 315 HP, and gets 23mpg highway.

Larry

[David Weaver]

I drove a loaded van with a 300-6 in it when I worked for a tile contractor. It really went like crazy given its horsepower quote, but I've heard several places that fuel economy and emissions killed it. That's too bad. People drive their cars like trucks now, anyway, though, revving them hard.

[Stephen Cherry]

I've got that 300 ci inline 6 in my 1992 f150. It's been OK so far, but only time will tell how well it's going to hold up.

[Mac McQuinn]

David,
The Ford 300 six was used until 1996 in the U.S. although newer engineering advances like direct port injection, lightweight casting technology, variable valve timing, 5, 6 and 8 speed transmissions, etc would have gone a long way in helping gas economy, emissions, etc.

Mac





I drove a loaded van with a 300-6 in it when I worked for a tile contractor. It really went like crazy given its horsepower quote, but I've heard several places that fuel economy and emissions killed it. That's too bad. People drive their cars like trucks now, anyway, though, revving them hard.

[David Weaver]

The 300 and the GM 3800 were engines that I really liked. The 3800 never had anything spectacular about it, but when you drove a car with it, the car always drove nice in regular driving and most of the GM cars fell apart around them before they failed.

Maybe the 300 lost out on the paper stat race (I can sell you a 200 horsepower 6 cylinder that makes its power at 4400 rpm or a 300 horsepower that makes it at 6500 and makes 3/4ths what the 300 does at 4400 - but it's hard for most people to get over 300 vs. 200 without thinking about anything else, and if Ferd offers 200 or that plus a little and GM offers 300, most people are fixated on the number and they'll look elsewhere). Maybe it was heavy and more expensive, too? Who knows. I liked it. And a lot better than the 302 upgrade.

[Stephen Cherry]

Nostalgic memories of the 300 6 are great, but if you look at the torque curve of the gm 5.3 liter, it is way over the 300 six at the the sixes peak, 2000 rpm, and continues to rise until it peaks at around 4100. I still have the old 6, and it is OK, but it in no way compares to the modern engines in torque or power or mpg. Maybe the 300 6 was as good as the old 302, an engine that proved itself in taxis and police cars, but time has left them both behind.

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/1992/features-specs.html

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Apr/0401-silverado.html

[David Weaver]

Nostalgic memories of the 300 6 are great, but if you look at the torque curve of the gm 5.3 liter, it is way over the 300 six at the the sixes peak, 2000 rpm, and continues to rise until it peaks at around 4100. I still have the old 6, and it is OK, but it in no way compares to the modern engines in torque or power or mpg. Maybe the 300 6 was as good as the old 302, an engine that proved itself in taxis and police cars, but time has left them both behind.

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/1992/features-specs.html

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Apr/0401-silverado.html

I was wondering that, too, sometimes we remember things being better because the vehicles they were in weighed 2/3rds as much. I think the biggest problem with the current trucks (for the average person) is that they're too big. It would be nice if the half ton was 2/3rd the size of the super duty.

[Mac McQuinn]

I agree, since around 2007, 1/2 ton trucks have increased in size and weight. How are you going to increase fuel mileage by making things bigger and heavier, especially with the huge frontal area and overall height. Ironically in a regular cab, they still only sit (3) across and haul 4x8' sheets in the back, just like my 1972 Chevy 1/2 ton....Mac


I was wondering that, too, sometimes we remember things being better because the vehicles they were in weighed 2/3rds as much. I think the biggest problem with the current trucks (for the average person) is that they're too big. It would be nice if the half ton was 2/3rd the size of the super duty.

[David Weaver]

I looked it up a while ago and found that a stripped down truck is about 1500 pounds heavier now than it was 30 years ago. Granted a lot of the trucks now are like cars inside and people wouldn't want anything like those trucks 30 years ago, but like you say, you could fit a sheet of plywood in them and they got the same mileage trucks do now and cost a fraction, even after adjusting for inflation.