2008 Suburban 5.3 to a 6.0 an easy swap?

[swathdiver]

Thanks Chris. Your target motors are the LY6 or its replacement the L96. Use your front cover in place of theirs with the VVT and you can use your heads for more torque or use theirs for more horsepower. In the 2500s those engines got 10 city and 15 highway; kinda like what I get now with my 5.3!

 

[the blur]

My 2011 Escalade is a monster. The 6.2 has an amazing power band.
My 2013, 2014 Suburban is a dog.

Not sure what the differences are..

 

[PG01]

My 2011 Escalade is a monster. The 6.2 has an amazing power band.
My 2013, 2014 Suburban is a dog.

Not sure what the differences are..

5.3 vs 6.2

 

[swathdiver]

My 2011 Escalade is a monster. The 6.2 has an amazing power band.
My 2013, 2014 Suburban is a dog.

Not sure what the differences are..

About 80 horsepower!

 

[1BADI5]

My 2011 Escalade is a monster. The 6.2 has an amazing power band.
My 2013, 2014 Suburban is a dog.

Not sure what the differences are..

Because the L94 (came in the Denali's and Esky's) is a beast of a motor. Its basically a truck version of the LS3.

When I LS swap my Chevy Colorado I will use the L94 as the base motor, (LSA/9 internals, cammed, ported/polish-pulley LSA supercharger and it will be a meth baby....because E85 is a PITA to get around here)

 

[iamdub]

Thanks Chris. Your target motors are the LY6 or its replacement the L96. Use your front cover in place of theirs with the VVT and you can use your heads for more torque or use theirs for more horsepower. In the 2500s those engines got 10 city and 15 highway; kinda like what I get now with my 5.3!

Noted: LY6 and L96.

I'll definitely aim for more TQ. I have a set of mildly worked 243s from a Z06 (hollow and sodium-filled valves). I don't recall how much better they flow, but I have the flowbench results somewhere. They have Comp trunnions and dual springs as they were slated to go on an LQ9 (iron LS2 build). I'll probably swap the yellow springs back on since I'll have a stock or mild cam.

You think it was the truck and gearing that returned such crappy MPG? I mean, does .7 liters drink that much more? It would have more TQ and be pulling less weight in my Tahoe. So, with a proper tune, it should get about the same as my 5.3, right?

 

[1BADI5]

Well MPGs has a lot more to do with the driver .....but the tune can help.

Just removing the torque management will yield a nice gain at the gas pedal.......when you step on the pedal there is no delay and you unharness what your motor has. So you can either use that in your quest of more MPGs or more smiles per gallon.

All of my trucks are tuned........GM really chokes them down from the factory. Between the removal of torque management and going to 93 octane it was like a new truck on my last tune.

 

[swathdiver]

You think it was the truck and gearing that returned such crappy MPG? I mean, does .7 liters drink that much more? It would have more TQ and be pulling less weight in my Tahoe. So, with a proper tune, it should get about the same as my 5.3, right?

A lot has to do with the tune and the 2500s weigh about 500 pounds more than my truck, that means 6,500 pounds empty. I reckon you're at least 1,000 pounds under that.

I would think the more torque a motor makes, the less effort to get and keep moving. That's how it used to be when we built torque motors, not the high winding european way.

 

[iamdub]

A lot has to do with the tune and the 2500s weigh about 500 pounds more than my truck, that means 6,500 pounds empty. I reckon you're at least 1,000 pounds under that.

You know, I don't believe I've ever considered yours being the long body when racking my brain on why yours gets such lower fuel economy than mine. That may be it- all the extra weight.

I would think the more torque a motor makes, the less effort to get and keep moving. That's how it used to be when we built torque motors, not the high winding european way.

This is true and why I like more displacement and higher compression.