4.2 vs 5.3...hear me out.

[Jkust]

they should have killed off the almost 30 year old 4.3L that STILL always leaks and put the 4.2 in it's place.

Hard to believe but they still make a lot of 4.3's for the marine industry. It is a hugely popular engine in brand new 2013 boats because of it's torque curve and suprisingly high torque numbers. I've got one in my pretty new boat and they are just great engines to say the least. They only just killed off the carbed version because of the EPA regulation. Simple and venerable is what sells in the marine industry...mostly. The only issue the marinized 4.3 has is it can develope run-on.

 

[Jkust]

Yeah, like I said in a different post somewhere up there, the power is just much lower, and much more broad than the I6. It's just a more 'relaxed' drive, and it doesn't feel labored, even when towing...

Mike

Need to remember to multi quote. I really tried liking the 4.2 since locating a V8 even in the 9-7 isn't too easy. The search would have went much faster and I'd have spent less money in vehicle and having to have a v8 version shipped from across country. I tested a handful of 4.2's but since I already had the 5.3 Rainier my bar was kind of set. The 4.2 needs to wind up to get moving while the 5.3 goes instantly from first second you press the pedal. The engines really don't resemble eachother with their driving characteristics at all. What it really shows me is how heavy our trucks really are. Getting almost 5000lbs of metal moving quickly takes a lot of low end torque. Add onto that even my light 4000lb boat and it really becomes evident.

 

[ElAviator72]

I finally had my first "wish I had the V8" moment. I had a 2,400 lb. empty U-haul trailer (taking it back to U-haul after a local rental) and had trouble getting up a steep hill on a residential street with it (speed limit: 30). I had to practically floor it and force the tranny to downshift to get up the hill. Granted, the wimpy 3.42 rearend doesn't help matters...

I sought out the 4.2 engine when I bought ours. I told my wife that the V8 just uses more gas (which it does-how substantially is apparently a matter of opinion). I also like my engines modern, I.E. NO PUSHRODS (okay, I think I just offended about every GM purist on the forum now ). I know that the LS-whatevers are supposedly modern motors, but I really wish GM would go over to multivalve overhead cams on the V8's...just my two cents here.

 

[Bartonmd]

I finally had my first "wish I had the V8" moment. I had a 2,400 lb. empty U-haul trailer (taking it back to U-haul after a local rental) and had trouble getting up a steep hill on a residential street with it (speed limit: 30). I had to practically floor it and force the tranny to downshift to get up the hill. Granted, the wimpy 3.42 rearend doesn't help matters...

I sought out the 4.2 engine when I bought ours. I told my wife that the V8 just uses more gas (which it does-how substantially is apparently a matter of opinion). I also like my engines modern, I.E. NO PUSHRODS (okay, I think I just offended about every GM purist on the forum now ). I know that the LS-whatevers are supposedly modern motors, but I really wish GM would go over to multivalve overhead cams on the V8's...just my two cents here.

While I know they can use more fuel, being a larger displacement with higher HP and torque numbers, there is quite a bit of variation in the mileage that the 4.2L gets, and there doesn't seem to be as much in the mileage that the 5.3L gets. Before the offroad mods, our 5.3L 4x4 G80 SWB got 16.5 pretty consistently commuting, and 19.5-21.5mpg on the highway, hills and speed dependent. I also have a 3.42 final drive ratio, and it tows a 6500# car trailer just fine, even starting from a stop at the bottom of steep hills.

OHC doesn't do much other than raise cost (production and modification costs), unless you're doing more than 2-valves/cylinder. 2 valves per cylinder is generally a better low-end torque engine, which is how you want a V8, IMO.

Mike

 

[ElAviator72]

OHC doesn't do much other than raise cost (production and modification costs), unless you're doing more than 2-valves/cylinder. 2 valves per cylinder is generally a better low-end torque engine, which is how you want a V8, IMO.

Mike

I'd love to see NASCAR racing V8's that scream along at 13,000-14,000 RPM with no valve float

GM could (if they so desired) design a V8 block that is designed to use two cylinder heads off of an existing inline four engine, although the cams would most likely be different, as no one (other than Ferrari) makes V8's that fire like two fours sharing a common crankshaft I gues one head would have to be a mirror image of the other, though, owing to the fact that the intake would be on the inside and the exhaust on the other...but you'd still have a bit of parts commonality with other production engines in such a setup. Maybe if you drove one bank with a rear camshaft drive...(that would make the L and R cylinder heads interchangeable, just like the classic small block).

Ford took the OHC leap in the early 1990's. It's just a shame that their quality suffered so much in the 1990's owing to their company's culture of cheap design.

 

[91RS]

I'd love to see NASCAR racing V8's that scream along at 13,000-14,000 RPM with no valve float

GM could (if they so desired) design a V8 block that is designed to use two cylinder heads off of an existing inline four engine, although the cams would most likely be different, as no one (other than Ferrari) makes V8's that fire like two fours sharing a common crankshaft I gues one head would have to be a mirror image of the other, though, owing to the fact that the intake would be on the inside and the exhaust on the other...but you'd still have a bit of parts commonality with other production engines in such a setup. Maybe if you drove one bank with a rear camshaft drive...(that would make the L and R cylinder heads interchangeable, just like the classic small block).

Ford took the OHC leap in the early 1990's. It's just a shame that their quality suffered so much in the 1990's owing to their company's culture of cheap design.

Ford's V8s are slow and don't rev (redline at 5k). The Mustang was slow too until the Coyote engine came out. I'd take a 5.3L over the 5.4L any day. Who cares if it has pushrods, it makes the power with a more simple setup and is reliable. The next generation is getting direct injection so we'll see how that works out.

 

[DocBrown]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is what kind of towing are you planning on doing? A travel trailer? A boat? Utility trailer? What's a typical towing distance and what is the terrain? Hills and mountains, or relatively flat?

I've been towing a 3500# travel trailer for 6 years with the I6 and 3:42 gears. I've towed in the Rocky Mountains and never had any trouble doing so. Anyone who tells you that down shifting is a sign of weakness hasn't done a lot of towing. Its perfectly normal to downshift and in fact is why transmission have gears to begin with. Even a 300HP/300ft V8 towing a 4500# trailer up a 2 mile 6% grade has to be done in 2nd gear. While a V8 is certainly "better", better is relative. If you don't tow a lot, don't have a need to tow in mountains or hilly terrain a lot, or don't need to regularly tow a lot of weight, having the V8 over the I6 isn't going to make all that much difference. You might find your dream TB with an I6 and pass it by, and never find one with a V8. If you do a lot of heavy duty towing, by all means hold out for the V8.

 

[Jkust]

While a V8 is certainly "better", better is relative. QUOTE]

Relating to the 'better' comment, if you aren't towing, and given the 0-60 times beteen the 6 and the 8 are very similar, I wonder what the mid range differences are between the two. Say 50 to 70 or 50 to 100mph times. I've had the least experience with the 6 in those situations. The 8 moves out good in those scenarios but good imo but compared to the 6, i have no idea.

 

[Sleezy E]

I would recommend the 5.3, in the 06+ models preferably, simply because its a gen IV ls motor and parts are easy to find and swappable with many other platforms..

 

[deekster_caddy]

What the OP is describing as his needs is why I was looking at the V8 Rainier. I found the body roll to be unacceptable though, and moved up to the larger platform. I never ended up getting anything in the -360 platform and got my 2500 'burb instead. No problems pulling my car trailer or whatever else I feel like throwing at it. 12-14mpg hurts a bit sometimes though, but really isn't all that bad for what the monster is capable of.

 

[Bartonmd]

While a V8 is certainly "better", better is relative.

Relating to the 'better' comment, if you aren't towing, and given the 0-60 times beteen the 6 and the 8 are very similar, I wonder what the mid range differences are between the two. Say 50 to 70 or 50 to 100mph times. I've had the least experience with the 6 in those situations. The 8 moves out good in those scenarios but good imo but compared to the 6, i have no idea.

That's sort of my point... WOT, the performance is reasonably close (though the faster you go, the more the V8 will pull). It's the "just driving around" where the V8 feels a lot more relaxed, and doesn't have to rev to make power, etc.

Mike

 

[Bartonmd]

What the OP is describing as his needs is why I was looking at the V8 Rainier. I found the body roll to be unacceptable though, and moved up to the larger platform. I never ended up getting anything in the -360 platform and got my 2500 'burb instead. No problems pulling my car trailer or whatever else I feel like throwing at it. 12-14mpg hurts a bit sometimes though, but really isn't all that bad for what the monster is capable of.

Something was wrong with the one you drove. My wife drives ours like it's a faching NASCAR with no issues. I can be following her down a curvy road on my sportbike, not going balls out, but definitely going fast enough to have a good time, and the TB right in front of me has noticibly little body roll. In fact, the TB was the first full frame SUV not to have a rollover warning on it. They corner better than the full size models.

Mike

 

[Jkust]

Something was wrong with the one you drove. My wife drives ours like it's a faching NASCAR with no issues. I can be following her down a curvy road on my sportbike, not going balls out, but definitely going fast enough to have a good time, and the TB right in front of me has noticibly little body roll. In fact, the TB was the first full frame SUV not to have a rollover warning on it. They corner better than the full size models.

Mike

Well I suppose I have to say body roll compared to what. Our Rainier, our second one we've owned, to me doesn't roll much for an suv. Compared to a car sure. One of the reasons the format handle well for a truck is the engine sits lower down and along with the silly but well intended oil pan situation. The Rainier compared to our 9-7 does have a good bit more roll but the 9-7 handles more like a car than an suv imo and you pay for that with a bumpier ride. I actually really like the ride in the Rainier much moreso than the 9-7.

 

[Bartonmd]

Well I suppose I have to say body roll compared to what. Our Rainier, our second one we've owned, to me doesn't roll much for an suv. Compared to a car sure. One of the reasons the format handle well for a truck is the engine sits lower down and along with the silly but well intended oil pan situation. The Rainier compared to our 9-7 does have a good bit more roll but the 9-7 handles more like a car than an suv imo and you pay for that with a bumpier ride. I actually really like the ride in the Rainier much moreso than the 9-7.

Yeah, ours is a TB... I suppose the Rainier may have smaller anti-roll bars?

Our TB rolls about as much as her Neon or my Eurosport Lumina did... A little more than her current Cruze ECO 6MT, but that handles really well.

Mike

 

[deekster_caddy]

Something was wrong with the one you drove. My wife drives ours like it's a faching NASCAR with no issues. I can be following her down a curvy road on my sportbike, not going balls out, but definitely going fast enough to have a good time, and the TB right in front of me has noticibly little body roll. In fact, the TB was the first full frame SUV not to have a rollover warning on it. They corner better than the full size models.

Mike

That's interesting to hear. I have read elsewhere about more body roll in the Rainier vs the Envoy/TB so I assumed what I felt was normal. The Rainier I test drove was an I-6 and based on the acceleration and handling I decided it wasn't worth pursuing. I also had my wife insisting we have 8 passenger seating, so I went full-size.

 

[ScarabEpic22]

I havent had stock suspension on my 02 TB for many years, but I clearly remember the body roll not being nearly as bad as my parents old 96 Jimmy. After a Hotckis swaybar, Eibach drop springs, and Bilstein HDs (never run them in the rear with a drop) my 02 cornered much more like a car. Just have a DJM swaybar on the SS now and it made a huge difference, still stock springs/airbags and shocks for now.

Wonder if GM changed the shocks for the different models to change the handling characteristics? We already know they changed the spring rates for SWB/LWB/I6/V8 which makes a difference in handling.

 

[Jkust]

That's interesting to hear. I have read elsewhere about more body roll in the Rainier vs the Envoy/TB so I assumed what I felt was normal. The Rainier I test drove was an I-6 and based on the acceleration and handling I decided it wasn't worth pursuing. I also had my wife insisting we have 8 passenger seating, so I went full-size.

All of the 360's suspension got dinged by the professional reviewers but they were many times comparing them to crossover's with unibodies. They didn't look too favorable compared to even the Explorer however. The Acura MDX for example was one of the big competitors to the Rainier price wise and review wise. They thrashed the Rainier by comparison.
Each of the siblings also got a different ride stiffness and characteristics. I'd say definitly the Rainier was the squishier of the bunch. Our 5.3 Rainier got retuned at the dealer with a bunch of new electronics including the PCM and it for some reason now takes off like a bat out of hell. It it were 2wd it would be a lot of fun. Had you tested our Rainier exclusive of the 8 passenger seating, you couldn't help but be impressed. It's fast to the point where you shake your head and wonder what the inept GM Dealership actually did since they don't seem to know. It now puts my identically equipped in all ways 9-7x to shame. Everything acceleration related is smoother and more instantaneous. There seems to be a wide variation of performance with these trucks as well.

 

[DocBrown]

While a V8 is certainly "better", better is relative. QUOTE]

Relating to the 'better' comment, if you aren't towing, and given the 0-60 times beteen the 6 and the 8 are very similar, I wonder what the mid range differences are between the two. Say 50 to 70 or 50 to 100mph times. I've had the least experience with the 6 in those situations. The 8 moves out good in those scenarios but good imo but compared to the 6, i have no idea.

That's an interesting thought. I have no experience comparing the two in that regard. I pretty much baby mine when it comes to freeway acceleration, more out of mileage concerns than anything else. I can say that hitting it hard from say 30 or 40 MPH the I6 is actually kind of sluggish and doesn't drop a gear for a what seems like a long time. Above 50 its a whole lot more responsive.

 

[MDBT]

It's been my experience that the Ranier has a more pronounced body roll than other GMTs (except the bravada though it was quite a while ago I drove that and may be mis-remembering). That said the highway ride was soft and superior. But my Ranier test drive was followed immediately by a Saab test drive so I was comparing the softest ride to the hardest back to back which would exaggerate my views.

The 5.3 isn't my favorite engine, LS motors need to rev out a lot more than the old LT motors did. Seemed like the LT motors had torque off idle that the LS motors haven't duplicated. Though torque management may have something to do with that. But compared to the I6 there is more tq available at a lower rpm and that's what I "feel" more often than the peak hp which frankly isn't very impressive in the LH6. I got the V8 for two simple reasons; first the EPA numbers were nearly identical. Second the whole reason I own an SUV instead of a car is because I have toys to tow so the extra torque would come in handy. IMO the only reason to buy the I6 is for a price break, I don't consider either significantly more or less reliable than the other from reading the info from members here and other sites.

 

[06Envoy]

The 5.3 isn't my favorite engine, LS motors need to rev out a lot more than the old LT motors did. Seemed like the LT motors had torque off idle that the LS motors haven't duplicated. Though torque management may have something to do with that. But compared to the I6 there is more tq available at a lower rpm and that's what I "feel" more often than the peak hp which frankly isn't very impressive in the LH6....

I agree that its torque management. I had 100% TM removed from my 5.3 and there was a dramatic improvement in off idle performance.

...Wonder if GM changed the shocks for the different models to change the handling characteristics? We already know they changed the spring rates for SWB/LWB/I6/V8 which makes a difference in handling.

Huh. I learn new things everyday.
I swear up and down my 5.3 Envoy has more body roll and a worse ride than my 4.2 Trailblazer.
Both are the XL/EXT versions.
I was chalking up the difference in ride quality and body roll as the air bags vs spring, but it could be the springs and or shocks?

 

[The_Roadie]

Except for the SS, all the shocks are the same across platforms. Spring rates were changed, and there was an anti-sway bar change once or twice over the years. But aging shocks (over 30-40K IMHO) just need to be discarded on a regular basis to retain a great ride. And the aftermarket shocks are MUCH better than the fluffy OEMs.

 

[06Envoy]

Oh, thanks for the clarification. Within the last three months I just bought genuine OEM shocks and struts for both trucks front and rear.
I guess I know why the local dealer didn't have them in stock, and why they were 60% more expensive than Bilstein's HD's. Sigh, the things you learn After you spend $.

I thought I'd go OEM vs aftermarket on the last go around.. Guess what? The OEM's came in as Bilstein's. (comfort though)

 

[Sparky]

They are a lot different than the Bilstein HDs. Bilstein in name only, really. Nothing special.

 

[91RS]

They are Bilsteins, but they're made to GM specs. So they are excellent quality shocks, just with the factory ride.

 

[Pittdawg]

I enjoy starting out with a wimpy engine and modding into a beast :wootwoot:

Actually, I would have preferred a V8 but there was no non-Denali V8 Envoy's around when I was shopping and the price difference between a 4.2 SLE and the Denali's was just ridiculous

My vote is to find the lowest priced, lowest mileage best condition vehicle in your color of choice and let the aftermarket take care of the rest

 

[Jkust]

I enjoy starting out with a wimpy engine and modding into a beast :wootwoot:

Actually, I would have preferred a V8 but there was no non-Denali V8 Envoy's around when I was shopping and the price difference between a 4.2 SLE and the Denali's was just ridiculous

My vote is to find the lowest priced, lowest mileage best condition vehicle in your color of choice and let the aftermarket take care of the rest

Ha, the mirror image of my philisophy. Find the lowest priced, lowest mileage, best condition with every single possible factory option I'd want and avoid the aftermarket. I would barely have the time to change out the valve stem caps much less add any mods. I absolutley hate seeing a blank on the dash where there would have been an optional piece of equipment. Even if I didn't need it for towing, just knowing a V8 with DOD was available and I didn't get it would cause me to loose sleep. Almost every vehicle I've ever bought has had whatever the top engine was with the top option package. If I can't find it locally I'll ship it from across the country. My wife thinks i'm nuts but then she doesn't complain that all her vehicles are selected for her with the same methodology. My boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, houses, or whatever are selected in that way.

 

[TollKeeper]

Ha, the mirror image of my philisophy. Find the lowest priced, lowest mileage, best condition with every single possible factory option I'd want and avoid the aftermarket. I would barely have the time to change out the valve stem caps much less add any mods. I absolutley hate seeing a blank on the dash where there would have been an optional piece of equipment. Even if I didn't need it for towing, just knowing a V8 with DOD was available and I didn't get it would cause me to loose sleep. Almost every vehicle I've ever bought has had whatever the top engine was with the top option package. If I can't find it locally I'll ship it from across the country. My wife thinks i'm nuts but then she doesn't complain that all her vehicles are selected for her with the same methodology. My boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, houses, or whatever are selected in that way.

I think they have a name for the... Uhm.. OCD comes to mind!

 

[Jkust]

I think they have a name for the... Uhm.. OCD comes to mind!

Ha, maybe but ocd with two 5.3's.

 

[Denali n DOO]

I have the 5.3L with G80 and 3:73's, DOD is amazing on the hiway, my last trip to Toronto down the 401 hit 10.5L/100km, in the city it will go up to 14-15L/100km. when pulling a trailer in winter it goes as hi as 18-19L/100km. I did have the burning oil issue and had valve cover replaced, the oil burning continued and got worse, at 89000km the engine died from lack of oil as it only had about 2L left in it when the dealer tore it apart. They did put a BRAND NEW engine in under warranty ($7600.00). I have about 50000km on the new engine and no oil burning issues. Maybe there are good 5.3 and bad ones too. My friend had an 06 avalanche with 5.3 and same oil burning issues, he got rid of his when mine failed. He ended up to buy an AWD Escalade and he gets even better gas mileage with the bigger engine. Did you end up finding the GMT your looking for or you still looking? I guess the Denali running boards are way too low for any off roading tho...

 

[ZR2Trailblazer]

Decided to go to a Duramax. Maybe someday I'll "upgrade" the Zr2.

 

[91RS]

Decided to go to a Duramax. Maybe someday I'll "upgrade" the Zr2.

Can't go wrong there. Get an 06-07 with the LBZ "D" engine code and you'll be happy happy happy.

 

[Short Bus]

pics or it didn't happen

 

[ZR2Trailblazer]

Still shopping. So it didnt happen. Yet...