Any body have any dealings with the chevy 6.2 liter at the track?

[Sigman]

I figure if they want to try it I will let them. Truck VS truck. If they wanted fast they should have bought a lighter faster version. As far as weight class. I have given up quite a disadvantage to some Mustang GT's and won. Lost a few too............

[SR5NEWBIE]

Originally Posted by Sigman

I figure if they want to try it I will let them. Truck VS truck. If they wanted fast they should have bought a lighter faster version. As far as weight class. I have given up quite a disadvantage to some Mustang GT's and won. Lost a few too............

Same here on the GT's. But if you go to the track you will find that pending the day and what your computer feels like doing, it runs differently at times. Not sure what is up with that. I ran (5) 9.1's in a row hot lapping one day and have not been able to break the 9.3's since.

[Mr. Creosote]

Originally Posted by SR5NEWBIE

Same here on the GT's. But if you go to the track you will find that pending the day and what your computer feels like doing, it runs differently at times. Not sure what is up with that. I ran (5) 9.1's in a row hot lapping one day and have not been able to break the 9.3's since.

It might be too much heat soak in the staging lanes. If you are leaving your engine running a long time sitting still before the run, heat gets built up under the hood, since the truck is not moving to get any cooling from the front. I have seen several tenths slower because of it.

Leave your engine off, hood partially up, and get a buddy to help you push the truck until you are at the front of the line. When it is your turn to stage, start up and stage quickly. The idea is to have the least amount of engine run time on a properly warmed up engine before you launch.

[thumbster]

Originally Posted by TX Tundra 07

Everyone on here likes to dismiss a chevy pushrod 2v engine as weak and old technology. I cant speak for the 6.2 because I havent seen a dyno, but the 5.3 has one of the flattest torque curves I have seen for a v8. They make 90%+ of their torque between 1800 and 5500 rpm's. Although its torque is peaked at a little higher rpm than the 5.7 (4000 rpm vs 3600), the 5.7 isnt quite that wide with its torque curve even with DOHC and VVTi.

The 5.3 is chevy's best engine in a pickup hands down in terms of torque and economy due to it's rod/stroke ratio - this is what gives it the flat torque curve. The dyno graph on a 5.7 toyota must be taken with a grain of salt because of how much the ECM interacts with the total available power at any given circumstance.

In terms of power potential, the 32 valve toyota OHC 5.7 will come out ahead of a pushrod GM 6.2 if given a proper tune. Due to the cylinder head breathing capability and compression ratio, the 5.7 has a good edge on the 6.2, even with the displacement advantage.

[TX Tundra 07]

Originally Posted by thumbster

In terms of power potential, the 32 valve toyota OHC 5.7 will come out ahead of a pushrod GM 6.2 if given a proper tune. Due to the cylinder head breathing capability and compression ratio, the 5.7 has a good edge on the 6.2, even with the displacement advantage.

Yes, and nobody is arguing that 5.7 has potential. However, we have absolutely NO aftermarket help right now. No heads, no cams, no decent tuning, nothing. Meanwhile, a 6.2 (or 5.3 for that matter) can go down to Joes performance shop, swap a cam, put on better flowing heads from an ls2/ls3/ls7/ls9, get an aggressive tune and be running 12's all day long. We cant even run 12's with a supercharger....

So can we please get some aftermarket help? I have a factory beast that I would love to twin turbo here...

[ClevelandTundra]

Originally Posted by TX Tundra 07

Yes, and nobody is arguing that 5.7 has potential. However, we have absolutely NO aftermarket help right now. No heads, no cams, no decent tuning, nothing. Meanwhile, a 6.2 (or 5.3 for that matter) can go down to Joes performance shop, swap a cam, put on better flowing heads from an ls2/ls3/ls7/ls9, get an aggressive tune and be running 12's all day long. We cant even run 12's with a supercharger....

So can we please get some aftermarket help? I have a factory beast that I would love to twin turbo here...

amen! where's andy and MHP? haha

[THUNDERA]

Originally Posted by TX Tundra 07

Yes, and nobody is arguing that 5.7 has potential. However, we have absolutely NO aftermarket help right now. No heads, no cams, no decent tuning, nothing. Meanwhile, a 6.2 (or 5.3 for that matter) can go down to Joes performance shop, swap a cam, put on better flowing heads from an ls2/ls3/ls7/ls9, get an aggressive tune and be running 12's all day long. We cant even run 12's with a supercharger....

So can we please get some aftermarket help? I have a factory beast that I would love to twin turbo here...

I highly doubt a 5.3L with just cams, heads and a tune is going to run 12's. I need some proof here...If you're talking daily drivers, 12's are usually reserved for diesels - and they have to have a decent amount of money in them to even run that time consistantly.

Remember, Motor Trend tested the TRD S/C RCSB Tundra at 13 flat in the quarter mile - The only performance goodies it had were the supercharger and the exhaust.

[vito9692]

ALL AMERICANS TAXPAYER ARE DEALING WITH THE NEW 6.2 FROM gM.LOL

[TX Tundra 07]

Originally Posted by THUNDERA

I highly doubt a 5.3L with just cams, heads and a tune is going to run 12's. I need some proof here...If you're talking daily drivers, 12's are usually reserved for diesels - and they have to have a decent amount of money in them to even run that time consistantly.

Remember, Motor Trend tested the TRD S/C RCSB Tundra at 13 flat in the quarter mile - The only performance goodies it had were the supercharger and the exhaust.

Yes motor trend tested it at 13 flat. Has that been repeated? Nobody wants to say what their S/C RCSB runs...I wonder why that is. I have yet to see one in the 12's.

Isnt there a guy on the board that has a 5.3 and runs 12's? Is that not proof enough, or is he full of b.s.? I didnt say 12.1, I said 12's...thats 12.99 and faster. It is do-able on a 5.3 RCSB h/c/tune...deep 12's with spray/forced induction.

Regardles, I wasnt trying to start a debate on whether 12's was possible in a chevy gas or diesel. The point was to say that there are some naturally aspirated 5.3's (and 6.2's) that are as fast as our blown 5.7. Period. We just arent getting the full potential of the S/C cause we have no tuning help....

[Rut]

Originally Posted by TX Tundra 07

Yes motor trend tested it at 13 flat. Has that been repeated? Nobody wants to say what their S/C RCSB runs...I wonder why that is. I have yet to see one in the 12's.

Isnt there a guy on the board that has a 5.3 and runs 12's? Is that not proof enough, or is he full of b.s.? I didnt say 12.1, I said 12's...thats 12.99 and faster. It is do-able on a 5.3 RCSB h/c/tune...deep 12's with spray/forced induction.

Regardles, I wasnt trying to start a debate on whether 12's was possible in a chevy gas or diesel. The point was to say that there are some naturally aspirated 5.3's (and 6.2's) that are as fast as our blown 5.7. Period. We just arent getting the full potential of the S/C cause we have no tuning help....

This guys RCSB runs 12.7

YouTube - 07 Tundra vs Chevy HD

[SR5NEWBIE]

Originally Posted by Burger Steak & Eggs

It might be too much heat soak in the staging lanes. If you are leaving your engine running a long time sitting still before the run, heat gets built up under the hood, since the truck is not moving to get any cooling from the front. I have seen several tenths slower because of it.

Leave your engine off, hood partially up, and get a buddy to help you push the truck until you are at the front of the line. When it is your turn to stage, start up and stage quickly. The idea is to have the least amount of engine run time on a properly warmed up engine before you launch.

When I ran those 5 lowest times, I did not let it rest. I do mean I was hot lapping. I have noticed that there are a lot of posts say the Toyo computer will lean it out one time and be rich another. I have read about alot of inconsistencies in the computer it self. What I have noticed with my truck supports this.

Last time I took the plastic piece off the engine and laid a bag of ice on the intake. Could only muster a 9.3 in about the same weather. Plus I let it rest with the bag of ice on it and the hood up. I did not even take the bag off when I ran it down the track...........LOL!

[SR5NEWBIE]

Originally Posted by THUNDERA

I highly doubt a 5.3L with just cams, heads and a tune is going to run 12's. I need some proof here...If you're talking daily drivers, 12's are usually reserved for diesels - and they have to have a decent amount of money in them to even run that time consistantly.

Remember, Motor Trend tested the TRD S/C RCSB Tundra at 13 flat in the quarter mile - The only performance goodies it had were the supercharger and the exhaust.

Actually it has been done. I have seen 4.8's with those mods that would smoke my Tundra.

[TX Tundra 07]

Originally Posted by Rut

This guys RCSB runs 12.7

YouTube - 07 Tundra vs Chevy HD

On Spray...

[Time4change]

Originally Posted by SR5NEWBIE

Chevys do have traction control that can be turned off. But that eaton locker rearend is going to help on the l launch. My diff is loosened up some and it is now a major one wheel peel.


Why do you guys keep saying the chevys are lighter? The Chevy shows to be 5371 plus lbs and that is Heavier than the Tundra.

Chevy
Curb weight 5371 lbs



Tundra
Curb weight 5340 lb (4x2 CrewMax), 5145 lb (4x2 Double Cab)

Have never seen those numbers.

Usually the GM's have a slightly higher payload with a slightly lower GVWR....only possible with a lighter curb weight.

Everything I've ever read has the Toy 2nd in curb weight to the F-150.

Welcome to the 2008 Light-Duty Shootout - PickupTrucks.com Special Reports

[Rut]

Originally Posted by TX Tundra 07

On Spray...

Yes. I read 150 shot