2014 Silverado/Sierra Release 5.3L MPG, Power, Payload and Towing Numbers

A Chevy Silverado 1 II

The General Motors strategy is clear: Release the new half-ton engine and truck specifications information in bite-sized pieces to get as much attention as possible. And as painful as it might be for truck lovers, we don't blame them one bit. There are some good bites here.

After completing all the required EPA fuel economy testing on their bread-and-butter all-new 5.3-liter V-8 engine, both Chevy and GMC are releasing more specification information on their coming half-ton pickups. No, we won't be getting all the information on the trucks and their two other optional engines (the smaller 4.3-liter V-6 or the bigger 6.2-liter V-8), but we will be getting some - not the least of which is the 5.3's power output curve, as well as maximum towing capacity and pricing.

We're told Chevy expects the new naturally aspirated all-aluminum EcoTec3 5.3-liter V-8 will be in three out of every four new Chevy Silverados. That statistic seems to contradict the current belief that many buyers could be gravitating toward more powerful and fuel-efficient V-6 choices like Ford's EcoBoost and Ram Truck's Pentastar.

Peak outputs for the middle GM engine are impressive though; the Society of Automotive Engineers rates it at 355 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 383 pounds-feet of torque at 4,100 rpms. However, from the GM-supplied power curve (see graph below), it looks like 90 percent of the 5.3's torque output sits nicely in the towing/hauling sweet spot between 2,500 and 5,500 rpm. (It should be noted these ratings were conducted with 87-octane fuel, so it is possible those numbers could be a touch higher if run with higher-octane fuel.)

1 GM 5

Additionally, EPA fuel economy numbers for both trucks with the middle 5.3-liter V-8 are 16/23/19 mpg city/highway/combined for a two-wheel-drive regular cab shortbed. The numbers are slightly less for the 4x4 model at 16/22/18 city/highway/combined. These numbers put the 2014 Silverado/Sierra with the V-8 option just a touch ahead of Ford's EcoBoost V-6 (see chart below) and well ahead of any other half-ton V-8 option.

2 EPA FE chart

As expected, the new GM half-ton trucks will have the highest maximum towing capacity among the competition (see chart below), listed for both as 11,500 pounds, but only with a new tow package that won't be available until later this year when the full lineup of truck configurations is available. Likewise, the new GM pickups will have improved payload capacities with a maximum payload rating (also requiring a special ordering package that won't be available until the end of the year) of 2,102 pounds. Ford still owns the payload title for half-tons.

3 Towing chart

Finally, preliminary pricing for both the 2014 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra has also been announced, with modest price increases on select models. And in some cases, there are no price increases at all when compared to 2013 pricing (see the 2013 versus 2014 chart below). No doubt there will be more to come.

4 Pricing chart

*Note: the 2013 Reg. Cab Silverado should be $24,585.  

To read the Chevy Silverado 1500 press release, click here.
To read the GMC Sierra 1500 press release, click here

 

B Chevy Silverado 2 II

 

Comments

Looks good, right mix of power, FE and Torque, Ecoboost eat your heart out.

Why buy the F150 V6 if you can get better MPG's with a real truck! By that I mean a V8!

Are these towing numbers using the new indrustry standard, as to which Toyota already uses and ford claims to use in their next all new model?

So all new engines and they barely beat the now 3 year old Ecoboost. WOW this is an April fools JOKE. I expected more than 1 mpg better when comparing 2wd to 2wd.

Respectable numbers for the "mid" level engine. Are these tow numbers based upon J2807 since the domestics said they'd adopt them on the new gen trucks. The HP/torque specs put it right in line power wise with the 5.0. One will have to pull up some graphs to see how they compare.

Don't get too excited yet! Still has less power AND less torque than the EcoBoost that came out 3 years ago! It appears to have about 325 lb-ft where the EcoBoost first puts out maximum torque (420 lb-ft). This isn't even out yet and people are already crowning it the winner. Let's see how it does in the real world. Like the Chevy boys pointed out to us a few years ago, we have to wait 10 years to make sure these new engines can prove themselves! lol
Also, I am curious. What axle ratio comes with the max tow package? I bet that it is the 4.11 or 3.73? Remember that GM is now using 3.08 axles to get its fuel economy ratings!

Nice Engine... Too bad it's in a Chevy truck. :(

@Alex - I agree that it is too early to say it is a winner since no one knows how that power on paper translates to power on pavement. It is no EB3.5 killer. It does seem to be in the 5.0 ballpark. The Chevy in the under 30K Shootout only got 18.8 mpg and the 5.0 got 21.2 mpg. Real world will be the ultimate test. It is unfortunately looking like Chevy has come up with a decent truck but not an industry leader like everyone expected.
I think that as long as the Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel is lurking in the background, everything from GMC will be cast in Ram's shadow.

With no towing test used for ALL manufactures, before you know it these half tons will surpass the 3/4 gas trucks in payload/towing. And who wants to see a ½ ton towing 12,000 down the highway going 70?

I am interested in the 6.2 numbers with max towing package. I do hope GM uses a 4.10 axle behind the 6.2 like they do in the HD’s with the 6.0.

I am glad to finnally see some figures. Keep in mind it is April Fools Day. Maybe its all BS :) Still glad to see the figures and they are fairly respectable. We were told not to expect anything Earth shattering but GM was right about where many of us felt they'd be. both HP and torque weer about 5-10 higher than I estimated but not far off. I think the lighter weight helped the city mpgs and for the mid-range motor I think it is pretty good. I fully anticipate another highway mpg when the 8-speed is out in a year.

the max tow package is obviously for the 6.2 and is likely at the limits for what should be towed by a 1/2 ton. I'd still like to see some normalized figures for towing and payload when not equiped by some "special package."

@Lou:

No...it's Ford and Chevy that will be casting a shadow caused by all the flames emanating from the burning Ram! LOL!

I'm getting the suspicion that the 4x2 Hemi/8-speed will be 16/22 like the EcoBoost, and that one extra tick of highway MPG for the GM 5.3 won't materialize in real-world driving... in other words, all three engines will get about the same mpg when in the hands of an owner, but the Ford and Ram engines will show their stuff by virtue of more HP and torque - in some cases, notably more (Ford with 37 more lb-ft, Ram with 40 more HP).

And until GM (and Ford, for that matter) challenge this fall's Ram diesel, the fuel economy argument will be pretty much over.

Not good enough, a one MPG improvement is not much improvement, power numbers are at least competative now and MPG is competitive for like a year and then they will be left in the dust again. I'm sure this truck will sell to the fleets and construction workers but it has not style or innovation that the rest of us look for when buying a truck.

Seems strange that they improved the truck significantly and only are charging a $1k more.

I'm curious to see if any of there towing numbers are J2807 certified. Probably not!

-Tim

So more torque then HP. If this holds true could we see a 300hp V6 with 310-320 lbs/ft pushing 25mpg?

What about a 420hp 6.2 with 450 lbs/ft.

I don't care what it has, I would have a truck that ugly sitting in my driveway.

Hopefully it is an April fools joke as 16/23 isn't good enough these days and gawd knows GM has gone overboard drawing out life cycles.

I think this is more
interestinhttp://www.trucktrend.com/features/consumer/163_news_130401_ford_f_150_going_unibody_for_2015/index.htmlg news today.

Hmm not sure what to think of this. Will be interesting to see if people prefer this over the more powerful ecoboost, but it's impressive how much better mpg is over the 5.0 ford with about the same performance. Appears to me that the chevy engine is best of the three (I take mpg over extra unnecessary power), but don't think I'd buy the chevy unless I liked the interior as much as the ford (which I doubt).

I suspect this news story is all BS. I'd hope the last several years of engine design would have optimized engine displacements for the latest technologies. A lot can be done with smaller displacements these days. I'd be surprised if GM kept the 4.3, 5.3, and 6.2L displacements.


Ford 5.0 has room to grow Hp, Tq wise. Direct injection would help.

the largest auto company in the world is sending out press releases on a word document??? going with BS on this one.

After searching the web it looks like GM will continue with the old displacements. Sounds like the old cultural thing that brought GM down before. I don't expect much fuel economy improvement from GM.

So GM decided the best way to catch up with Ford and Ram by making the engine that they say will be in 3 out of 4 of Chevy trucks have less HP and TQ ,by quite wide margins, than the engines in most Ram (5.7) and Ford (Ecoboost) trucks? Sounds like a brilliant strategy....

No diesel= no sale for me.Xin Loi GM,looks like you are going to lose me as a customer unless the Colorado comes out with a diesel.

IT will really be interesting to plot all the available engines in the segment on top of each other.
The big question with all this remains if the tow package still uses a deeper axle gear. even the Ram with the Hemi and 6spd is still offering axle ratio choices. J2807 calls for the numerically smallest ratio available to be used for towing performance testing. It is possible that thew tow package keeps the same ratio, but has the increased axle capacity as its main difference- remember, to pull 10000#, you have to hold up a 1000lb tongue weight. AFAIC, if its not J2807, I don't want to hear it.

oh,
@ken- Gm announced the 4.3, 5.3, and 6.2 displacements months ago. No BS about it.
@Brian- THAT is an april fools story.

As an automotive and truck enthusiast who happens to be a licensed Professional Engineer and who is currently working on a MBA, I have studied the American Big 3 and their earnings over the past several years.

GM simply doesn't have the cash to develop an entirely new range of engines. The best bang-for-the-buck for GM was to modernize existing engines. As R&D costs continue to escalate, look for more R&D partnerships between competing manufacturers.

APRIL FOOLS !!

great combo of Power and FE.

I like these numbers alot...Plus I trust the reliabilty the a GM V8 over any twin turbo V6.

can't wait to see the 4.3 V6 numbers

I love the Chevrolet Smallblock engines. I actually do think it will be the standard choice. SBC's just have a larger following than what Ford had in their V8's. GM's probably right on that. I'm just not so sure people will be drawn to the looks of this truck. I like the front end changes and it looks good in that top picture but in that bottom picture those massive square fender flares really jump out at you and not in a good way. They really should have cleaned the sides of these trucks up. It was what made the current model look so poor. Now it's almost like they plumped them out even further. I dunno, I personally feel the upcoming Atlas and even current F-150 and Dodge Ram are more appealing trucks to the eye. That's where the problem for Chevrolet lies. Their body designs have gotten way out of hand since the 07 model. Too cartoonish and bizarre looking for me. Nothing like they used to be.

" in that bottom picture those massive square fender flares really jump out at you and not in a good way. They really should have cleaned the sides of these trucks up. It was what made the current model look so poor. Now it's almost like they plumped them out even further. I dunno, I personally feel the upcoming Atlas and even current F-150 and Dodge Ram are more appealing trucks to the eye. That's where the problem for Chevrolet lies. Their body designs have gotten way out of hand since the 07 model. Too cartoonish and bizarre looking for me. Nothing like they used to be."

- In the bottom picture that thing looks like a dually. I don't like it at all. It looks ridiculous. Good on the engines though. Chevy just needs new designers for their truck bodies. I'll keep my 07 classic until the next model Silverado yet again. I hated this last bodystyle and this is almost worse. I'm not sure who thought that actually looked good and greenlighted the production of this thing. I'll never buy anything but a Chevy but I'm not buying a Chevy that looks like the current model or this either.

$24.5k for a regular cab? Holy cow.

I was hopeing for bit more HP and TQ, but this puts the 5.3L with in the current 6.0L power with a lot better mileage.

5.3l ecotech with crappy numbers like that? APRIL FOOLS eh

The Ram still has the best combo out right now. The HEMI 5.7 produces another 40 HP and 22 lb-ft of torque yet only gives up 1 mpg.

Back to the drawing board Chevy.

Well, looks like Chevy takes the cake for pencil whipping tow ratings!

Lets see, if you had an Ecoboost it makes more torque then this thing, at a lower rpm. Both of the GM and Ford 6 speeds are similar. But they rated this one higher? We will see.

The Ram 8 speed and Hemi makes more torque then this 5.3 and has more gear choices.

The old 5.3 had a good power curve (flat almost) but there wasn't much of it. This one is yet peakier. It's all about the numbers for Chevy, like the towing rating of 11,500. Who in their right mind would tow 11,500 with this?

Not that it's a great idea to buy anything and tow at the max rated amount on a regular bases. Still better off thinking max of 70 or 75% if you plan on it regularly.

And as others have said, the gas mileage rating is with what gears? 3.42 and 3.08? Yeah, I can imagine Joe Bob Chevy towing 11,500 with his/her brick looking Silverado with 3.42 gears. Anything less then interstate speeds or the slightest incline and it would spend most it's time in 5th gear.

I am sure somebody will be quick to respond the Ram 4x4 has 3.21 gears, yup, and it will lock out 8th gear for towing in tow haul mode, so you tow with 2.7 gear, while the Chevy has a 2.28 in the top gear, (with 3.42, 2.05!! with 3.08s!) as it's tow haul doesn't lock out any gears. Great EMPTY gas mileage for Kansas and Florida where it's flat. Anybody else is damned.

If Chevy wants to tow that much with a 3.42 gear, it would be a mistake. So they would need 3.73 again, but that would change their mileage rating.

They finally made the 5.3 barely make more torque per inch then a 5.7 hemi. Too bad it needs more rpm to make max torque.
Lets see how they do in the real world.

This has the makings to be a good April fools joke! I'm laughing already!

4% better fuel economy than the ecoboost at a sacrifice of 9% peak engine torque

An actual sacrifice of 23% compared to the ecoboost in the torque department down low in the rev range where you actually want it while towing.

to all the Ford Fanboi's clearly getting their panties in a wad about this... I'll break it down for you.

The players: 5.3L naturally aspirated cam in block 2 valve/cyl V8 vs bi-turbo direct injected dual overhead cam V6 ( I wonder which of these is going to win the reliability test?)

FE - Chevrolet wins at least on paper

Power - ecoboost barely edges it out but Im sure the For bois will run with this one as far as they can

Cost - I guess we can wait but I am willing to bet 4 cams and two turbos will never be cheaper than 1 cam and um some cast iron exhaust manifolds, yeah not on your life

The Chevrolet is a V8 and once again proves you can have your cake and eat it too, truck guys like rumble no two ways around it, I cant wait to see the showdown between these two, its probably going to be a lot closer than some blue oval would like to admit.

History, Chevy small block can trace its roots back for decades, Ford has never been able to produce a gas engine worth anything in 15-20 years. Whereas the LS makeover the SBC got in the late 90's only made a proven platform that much better. The fact is, the cam is still in the block, and it is running right with engines with 10x the complexity and on unproven platforms. the GenX LS engines are bomb proof and proven, this just added some direct injection and some more aggressive computer programming for the supporting systems. I cant wait to get behind the wheel of one of these.

@devil, you have 100 lb-ft less torque @ 2000 rpm. The only Chevy engine worth caring about is the Duramax. If GM announced an optional 4.5L Duramax, I would get excited about it. But the only people getting excited about this 5.3 are Chevy fanbois.

This may be an April Fool's joke one way or the other for GMC.

@Jason H - fried goat, how unappealing. Now I get it, the Ram box is for carrying the barbeque sauce =(

@nlp,

One of those I am highly educated people and going to try and toss that around like you know anything. I bet you can't even spell what mba stands for. None of that has anything to do with what you were trying to babble about...

TRX,

Pencil whipping? A gain of less than a thousand pounds on towing with a completely new truck compared to the old is more pencil whipping than what dodge did with their 1 ton? Give me a break!

Also, any moron buying a truck (expect you it seems) knows that just because they advertise XXX towing #'s doesn't mean every half ton can from a loaded crew cab with a top of the line engine to a base regular cab with a bas engine. Dodge does the same thing with their trucks, epa the lowest gear and tow the highest. Quit trying to spin it in your favor.

People who aren't impressed compares to the eco, this has twice the number of cylinders and no FI; this is very impressive considering this is thier mid level engine. They matched ford on power comepared to their 5.0 and whipped then on economy. Sure they could have gone more power and still beat them on economy but they found a great balance. Anyone needing more, just wait for the 6.2. The hemi is kind of the red headed step child. Gets out down handidly (who ever said barely beats it by 1 mpg must read again, it gets 3 better than the hemi) out done in mpg's and then get's handidly out done in power and performance compared to the top offerings from Ford and GM. That must suck, they really don't have a direct competitor...

@Tyler, you believe 8 cylinders is "twice the number of cylinders" as 6? You need to go back to school buddy!

Axle ratios make little difference in fuel economy. We're talking tenths of a mpg and it may not even show up in the real world. If fuel economy is a concern, what speed you drive should be the concern, not what axle ratio to buy. Just slowing down from 65 mph to 55 mph can increase your miles per gallon by as much as 15 percent.

Why are people comparing the 5.3 to the EcoBoost? The 5.0 would be the more accurate comparaison.

The numbers on the new 5.3 are where they should be and when the new tranny comes probably 17/24 or 17/25.

As far as the comparison to the Ecoboost the EB is premium power and towing with between v6 and mid rage v8 FE. his engine is just mid range v8 engine designed for mid range power and towing with mid range FE. This engine looks like it should be compared to the Coyote 5.0L v8 F150. I would give this engine the edge over the Coyote (in a pickup only) and both seem like they would be a blast to drive with forced induction for performance enthusiast.

^Tyler,
Threatened/insecure much?

My point was the Big 3 (and most all Fortune 500 companies) are publically traded and thus their balance sheets are public information. Every MBA program in the country seeks to study and learn from this data.

It can cost $100,000,000-$200,000,000 to bring an entirely new engine from R&D to the assembly line. GM is/was in no position to develop 3 brand new engines from a cadd drawing.
Love them or hate them, what Ford did 3 years ago with the 3.7L, 3.5LEB, and 6.2L way a HUGE gamble that not every manufacturer can make right now.

So why don't you relax? This isn't life or death.

@nlp - I had read somewhere that a billion dollars was the price for a new vehicle from inception to mass production. CADD and other advancements in computing reduce that cost and the time required. It does, as you have pointed out, cost some serious coin. GMC was/is in no position to go completely clean slate on their new trucks. Evolution not revolution was their mantra based on their financial position and familiarity with truck buying orthodoxy.
I believe that Ford kept the 6.2 around for the F150 just in case the EB3.5 was a marketing and sales disaster. A V6 as a prime mover was a big risk.
Ram with all of its advertised wizardry hasn't taken any big chances with most of its new technology. 8 speed versus 6 speed - no risk. Air ride as an option - minimal risk. Coil rear suspension - moderate risk. Shutters - minimal risk. Baby diesel - moderate risk (depending on option price).

@ad - I agree that the 5.3 is a direct competitor to Ford's 5.0. Ram doesn't really have a competitor. Their smaller V8 is seen by most as a waste of money (like Ford's 4.6 versus 5.4).

As for comparisons, I compare the most popular engine choice.

For Ford, it is EcoBoost/V6.

The 5.3 is not just the mid range engine for Chevy. The press release says 3 out 4 buyers pick the 5.3 for Chevy. This is overwhelming.

If you want to compare V8 vs V8, go ahead but it's not what most people are buying anymore in the Fords.

Now if Ford were to make the 5.0L a EcoBoost engine that would be very interesting.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com