Chevy 5.7L vs 5.3L V8

[drm7]

All, I'm looking to get a Suburban as the new family truckster. I've always been a Ford guy but I'm considering the Suburban. My wife felt comfortable driving it and I think the Excursion would be too big and I don't think they get as good as gas mileage as the Chevy. My question is this: is the 5.3 a good motor in 2000/2001? I have read all the piston slap and other things on the new gen motor. The 5.7 has been out for 35 years and it seems they go 200k+ easily. Am I afraid of the 5.3 for no reason? I am looking to get a truck w/65k or less miles and need to go 200k or better. Any opinions from those who actually own these engines?

Thanks!

 

[pooter WS6]

the 5.7 and the 5.3 are actually the same motor just with different bore and stroke. Both are really fine engines and are some of the more efficient motors GM has ever produced. They are LS1 derived motors and have been proven in the field now since 1997, if not longer. Don't worry about the 5.3. If you think about it, the 5.3 has been around for a long time also. It is actually a 327 cu. in. motor. These motors were around in the early 60's. They are different engines than the 60's version. You really can't go wrong with either engine.

 

[Jon]

I'm familiar with a 2500 series, HD, 2000 model with the 6.0 liter. Get the 6! The 5.3 is too small and the 6.0 actually gets better mileage in a larger vehicle! The 5.3 is working all the time.

Where are you located?

 

[Jon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooter WS6:
the 5.7 and the 5.3 are actually the same motor just with different bore and stroke.

---

My understanding is that the 5.3 has nothing whatsoever in common with the 5.7 -- the 5.7 is the "SBC - Small Block Chevy" that's been around forever. The 5.3 is part of their new engine line, which includes the 4.8L and the 6.0L, and possibly the 8.1 (8.2?) L.

Yes, 5.3 translates to approx. 327 cubic inches (closer to 323). 327 cubic inches is 5362.8 cubic centimeters. Anyway, the 5.3 is not just a 5.7 with a shorter stroke and/or smaller bore.

Go here to see the bore and stroke listings:

http://www.mortec.com/borstrok.htm

 

[T-Keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooter WS6:
the 5.7 and the 5.3 are actually the same motor just with different bore and stroke. Both are really fine engines and are some of the more efficient motors GM has ever produced. They are LS1 derived motors and have been proven in the field now since 1997, if not longer. Don't worry about the 5.3. If you think about it, the 5.3 has been around for a long time also. It is actually a 327 cu. in. motor. These motors were around in the early 60's. They are different engines than the 60's version. You really can't go wrong with either engine.

---

The 5.7 he is refering to is the truck motor(350). This is not the same as the 5.3(325) but completely different. The only 5.7 "LS1 derived" engine is the LS1 and LS6 (346) and they are not used in trucks.

To answer your question they are both good motors, but the 5.3 is much more "high tech" meaning better fuel economy and power. I think they would both be about the same in terms of reliabity, but remember with the 5.3 you also get a more advanced truck to go with it.

-T

 

[drm7]

It's my understanding that the 5.3 has nothing in common with the 5.7 as well. Hence my fear. What is the first year of this engine? I know the suburbans got it in 2000 and I'm always afraid of first year runs for new engines. Are there any issues with 5.3/6.0 as far as reliability? I really can't afford to spend money fixing things if I can help it. I'd rather have a higher mileage 5.7 than a 5.3 if the 5.3 has "issues".

Jon, I'm in Roanoke, VA.

 

[T-Keith]

The 5.3 started in 99.(actually late 98) But it was based on the 97 Corvette engine, so it's been out for a few years now.

It doesn't have any more issues then the 5.7 that I know of.

-T

 

[Brett Miller]

The 5.3l is totally different from the 5.7l. Different heads, block, intake manifold, oil pan & pump, crank, ignition, etc.

 

[drm7]

Thanks for all the info.

Anyone with hard facts/experience on durability/reliability of the 5.3? With the way Suburbans lose value I would have to take a beating to get rid of a junker in a couple years. I need at least 6-8 years out of this purchase.
None of this:

BTW, any oil consumption issues with either of these engines. I believe the older 5.7 use to consume some oil but I'm hoping by 99 that issue was solved.

 

[Chris B.]

My 5.3 never burned a drop of oil from day one. I have heard of lots of these engines on truck boards that have over 200,000+ miles now. I think the 5.3 is a better engine then the 6.0 as it's power is pretty close and you get better mpg. My all time best was 21 highway and averaged 18 all around. My 5.3 1500 was acctually much faster than my friends 2500 6.0. By 60mph I had 2 lengths or so on him.

I just sold my for a Colorado Crew cab because I needed the room and the Silverado would not fit in the garage.

 

[Jon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris B.:
My 5.3 never burned a drop of oil from day one. I have heard of lots of these engines on truck boards that have over 200,000+ miles now. I think the 5.3 is a better engine then the 6.0 as it's power is pretty close and you get better mpg. My all time best was 21 highway and averaged 18 all around. My 5.3 1500 was acctually much faster than my friends 2500 6.0. By 60mph I had 2 lengths or so on him.

I just sold my for a Colorado Crew cab because I needed the room and the Silverado would not fit in the garage.

---

First of all, depending on the year and vehicle, there is a huge difference is weight between the 1500 and the 2500. I quick check shows approx. 700 pounds of difference. At 1HP/8pounds, the trucks would have to differ by 100HP to be "equal". Add in things like 4x4 vs 4x2, differences in cab, box, etc... and you have a substantial difference. My motorcycle with "only" a 900cc engine, which weights 600 pounds, is much much quicker than any of the family vehicles. And my bike is 23 years old. Not a valid comparison, either.

Secondly, a family member's 2000 4x4 2500 Suburban, loaded down with probably 1500 pounds of "stuff" inside of it, easily gets 24 highway. The last time I towed a trailer with a 800 pound motorcycle on it (I have no idea what the trailer itself weighs), I got 25. That's with the 6.0L.

I have experience with both the 5.3L and the 6.0L. The 6.0L isn't *that* much stronger, approx. 20 HP at 2000 RPM, and 30HP at 3000 RPM, until they both sign off, but what counts is where the power is.

The official ratings are:

5.3L 295HP @ 5200, 335 ft-lbs @ 4000
6.0L 300HP @ 4400, 360 ft-lbs @ 4000.

By absolute numbers, there isn't much difference, but the 6.0L makes more power earlier, which, for towing at least, makes a big difference.

 

[Oldswagon]

I prefer the 5.7 over the 5.3, but then again it takes a long time for any new engine to grow on me. The big downfall with the 5.7 is the Vortec fuel injection system that it uses. This system uses central mounted injectors with lines and poppet valves. The problem is these poppet valves require a certain pressure to open, and therefore is very senstive to fuel pressure. This system operates at a fairly high pressure, and only a slight drop in system pressure (often caused be a weak/overworked pump) may be enough to cause the poppet valves to not open. What does this mean? You get a no-start. Typically a new fuel pump will solve the problem, although a clogged filter sometimes is the problem. Fuel pumps are not cheap for these trucks, so be warned.

I have friend with a 2001 GM Van with the 350 Vortec, and the drivetrain been flawless, except he did have a fuel pump failure. It was a very expensive job, but I think that it may have been a faulty pump from the factory since the van had seen regualar fuel filter changes and fuel system cleaners. This van also runs Delvac 1 5W40, and consumes virtually no oil. He used to run 5W30 Mobil 1, and even with that oil it consumed very little (more than Delvac), but not enough to ever need top up.

You may want to drive a 5.3 and a 5.7 Subruban. Since the 5.3's are in the new trucks, maybe you will prefer one over the other. Personally, I don't like the new Suburbans, especially with the rear coils on the 1500's. I also find that although the 5.3 has more power, it feels much less torquey than the 5.7 it replaces. I'd much rather have torque over hp in a truck.

Another thing to consider is look at the transmission condition on these trucks. Tranny failures are pretty common when they are abused/overworked. Towing heavy loads in OD, overheating, and other abuse in a big heavy suburban leads to a short life span. I'd be much more concerned about the tranny than the engines.

 

[drm7]

Oldswagon: thanks for the info. I drove an Expedition (2001) and a Suburban (2001) back-to-back and I have to say the steering feel, brake response, handling, etc goes to the Suburban. In evasive maneuvers the Suburban felt like it was under control and the rear stayed with the truck, the Expedition swayed like a willow tree in the wind. The check suspension light was on in the Expy so maybe it had a problem. The Suburban rear sway bar was much thicker. Also, I believe the tow rating was increased by 1800lbs on the 2001 vs 1999. I haven't driven a 1999 yet to see how they feel.

 

[RH+G]

The 5.3 came on the newer burbs while the 5.7 came on the older burbs. The motors are both great motors but the newr truck is a nicer truck. I dont think the motor should influence your decision but the design of the whole truck should

 

[RH+G]

The 5.3 came on the newer burbs while the 5.7 came on the older burbs. The motors are both great motors but the newr truck is a nicer truck. I dont think the motor should influence your decision but the design of the whole truck should

 

[drm7]

RH+G: we did eaxclty as you said. We drove a 2001 and a 1999. BIG difference! The 2001 handles so much better so it will be much easier for my wife to handle. The braking, handling, interior, etc was hands down better on the 2001. We found a mint shape, 1 owner, 2001 with just about every option and only 45k miles. So far we are loving it. I drive it pretty easy to save on gas. Now the fun part, the oil to use.

I'll probably do an autorx and run M1 5w30 for 5000 OCI.

Thanks everyone for the info!

 

[QuadDriver]

The true 5.7 aka 350 is the old SBC in various gens, the LS1 was a "5.7" (wink wink) and is the 'SBC3' (the SBC2 is a nascar only engine)

It is correct to call the 4.8, 5.3 and 6.0 LS1 derivitives....same engine family save they have iron blocks as opposed to the newer LS1 AL block (not to be confused with the original LS series from GM which were RPO codes)

the 8.1 is an MK6 follow on, or in other words, a big block with revised cooling passages