What year 5.3?

[KMC3420]

I have been doing lots of research on swapping a 5.3 into my 72. I am going to get my engine from the local salvage yard. I am needing info on what is the best year(s) of the 5.3 that I should have them look for? I understand the DBW vs DBC, DBC seems to be what most guys have. So what year should I have them look for, and what is considered low mileage on a 5.3 as I have never owned one? I have already purchased dirty dingo sliders, as well as the CPP sheet metal perches. Thanks for any info.

[dman1982]

Originally Posted by KMC3420

I have been doing lots of research on swapping a 5.3 into my 72. I am going to get my engine from the local salvage yard. I am needing info on what is the best year(s) of the 5.3 that I should have them look for? I understand the DBW vs DBC, DBC seems to be what most guys have. So what year should I have them look for, and what is considered low mileage on a 5.3 as I have never owned one? I have already purchased dirty dingo sliders, as well as the CPP sheet metal perches. Thanks for any info.

i got a 2004 5.3 with the dbw, i like it, its responsive, but I'm having a hard time getting use to it...i have a lot more power now and not used to it...its pretty sensitive, i know on the 04 (mine anyways) it has the returnless fuel system and its pretty easy to install

[KMC3420]

That is the info I am looking for and should have put more info in regards to the fuel system and which years would be the easiest to install. The guy who I am having find the motor for me asked me what year I wanted. Just needing some info to give to him. I didn't know as well if there were any problem years to avoid. Thanks for the reply. I looked through your swap thread, looks like you did a good job and pretty straight forward. All the extras you have to buy seem to add up.

[dman1982]

I found mine and was somewhat of a good deal for the motor and tranny, 130k for 1200 bucks with the harness, your doing it right by researching, I just found mine and got lucky, it's been a fun project tho

[KMC3420]

Thanks for your help, just trying to avoid any problems up front. Sounds like you got a pretty good deal. I am looking for the motor and tranny combo, just to make things easier. I have read aliens thread about LS engine swap info, it has helped out a ton.

[dman1982]

Ya no problem, if it wasn't for this site I'd of sold my truck 4 years ago lol

[KMC3420]

I have a 79 K10, short wide. Pretty similar to yours, redid it when I was 16 with my dad, its due for another redo. Probably will throw an 5.3 or 6.0 in it when the time comes. I imagine the 5.3 makes some good power over my old 350.

[dman1982]

Originally Posted by KMC3420

I have a 79 K10, short wide. Pretty similar to yours, redid it when I was 16 with my dad, its due for another redo. Probably will throw an 5.3 or 6.0 in it when the time comes. I imagine the 5.3 makes some good power over my old 350.

Unbelievable difference!!! Love it so far

[KMC3420]

Thanks for serving also, just saw that.

[dman1982]

Originally Posted by KMC3420

Thanks for serving also, just saw that.

No problem, I got out in jan after 12 years

[71chevystep4x4]

Mines the first year 1999 5.3L which only had 89K on it, and I am very pleased every time I drive her, better power and response than any of the previous engines I've had in her. It's 4x4 with 4 speed and 33" tires, and will burn um off no problem.

[KMC3420]

I am thinking the same thing. Any 5.3 is a step up. I am probably going to look for an 04 or 05 with a 4l60e. Thanks for the help.

[solidaxel]

Originally Posted by KMC3420

I am thinking the same thing. Any 5.3 is a step up. I am probably going to look for an 04 or 05 with a 4l60e. Thanks for the help.

Good choice !

[66LSx]

I wanted to 'try' to get into an 04-05' non-flex for having the most common ECM, injectors, and returnless fuel system while still being DBW...(while not really important... it did save me $$$$ with not having to run 2 sst braided lines up the chassis from my rear mounted tank vs. returnless




SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION regarding 5.3L vortecs

Injectors (non flex)
PN 25317628 2001-2007 - 4.8L, 5.3L, 6.0L - flows 3.180 gm/sec or 25.2lb/hr @ 58 psi

03+ throttle body: 8 pin connector on passenger side only

tac module: 99-02 all plastic, 2003+ plastic with metal mounting bracket

VERY important to do your homework (or get all the stuff from the same truck) regarding gas pedal, pedal TCM unit, engine ECM itself, the potential wiring harness uncut if possible... otherwise you REALLY have to pay attention to making sure your sourcing components that play nice from the correct model years.

[littlevictories]

dont get hung up on this year or that year
find something complete with good compression and oil pressure and bolt it in

[KMC3420]

Okay, I wont get hung up on any years, just let me know if there are any years to avoid.

[OldRuffiaN]

Starting in`05 GM went to much stronger rods/bolts with floating wrist pins as opposed to pressed in.This seems to have cured the piston slap issues with earlier versions and are much stronger overall if you`re considering boost/nitrous.

[BR3W CITY]

Piston slap, while it does exist, occured in a fractional minority of the engines released. The issue was most prevalent on the all-aluminum early motors due to the metallurgy, and some of the 99-01 truck engines had the issues as well. Most of the time, the problems people label as "piston slap" really aren't.

The rod bolts is even more of a hit-or-miss issue. Again, it was mostly an early year issue. Most of the rod bolt failures that occured did not happen due to raw mechanical failure under normal circumstance. A large majority failed after having already been re-used, so failure to follow proper torque procedures added to the amount of sheared bolts. Additionally, most failed during high-rpm or sudden detonation situations...NOT failing under boost load. The sudden and impactful hit of nitrous, or the shock of detonation at high rpm are far more likely to destroy a rod bolt than boost.
Shortly after the issue was "addressed" circa 05-ish, stories still came out of wrecked rod bolts. The truth seems to be that the use, maintenance, installation and stresses all applied to the failure rate...and could pretty much do the same damage to any year. Anyone looking to go the the "next level" of mods should consider the upgrade as an option, but my no means an absolute requirement, regardless of year.



IMO, there are only 2 engines to avoid. The first one to avoid is any LS1 that you don't know the history of. Why? Due to the desireability of the "name", they are usually overpriced, well beaten, and are the oldest. These are the engines inhabiting the earliest f-bodies and corvettes, and have been treated as such. The 98's also have special wiring and ecm situations that makes them a pain.

The other engine, is the 99-00 first-run truck engines with the Iron heads. The weigh the most, the heads are inferior to any of the Aluminum heads, and again they are the oldest and most likely to have high miles. Also, the early trucks had a flywheel spacer built in, making it so the 4l80e is pretty much your only tranny option.

[ivorton74]

Originally Posted by BR3W CITY

Piston slap, while it does exist, occured in a fractional minority of the engines released. The issue was most prevalent on the all-aluminum early motors due to the metallurgy, and some of the 99-01 truck engines had the issues as well. Most of the time, the problems people label as "piston slap" really aren't.

The rod bolts is even more of a hit-or-miss issue. Again, it was mostly an early year issue. Most of the rod bolt failures that occured did not happen due to raw mechanical failure under normal circumstance. A large majority failed after having already been re-used, so failure to follow proper torque procedures added to the amount of sheared bolts. Additionally, most failed during high-rpm or sudden detonation situations...NOT failing under boost load. The sudden and impactful hit of nitrous, or the shock of detonation at high rpm are far more likely to destroy a rod bolt than boost.
Shortly after the issue was "addressed" circa 05-ish, stories still came out of wrecked rod bolts. The truth seems to be that the use, maintenance, installation and stresses all applied to the failure rate...and could pretty much do the same damage to any year. Anyone looking to go the the "next level" of mods should consider the upgrade as an option, but my no means an absolute requirement, regardless of year.



IMO, there are only 2 engines to avoid. The first one to avoid is any LS1 that you don't know the history of. Why? Due to the desireability of the "name", they are usually overpriced, well beaten, and are the oldest. These are the engines inhabiting the earliest f-bodies and corvettes, and have been treated as such. The 98's also have special wiring and ecm situations that makes them a pain.

The other engine, is the 99-00 first-run truck engines with the Iron heads. The weigh the most, the heads are inferior to any of the Aluminum heads, and again they are the oldest and most likely to have high miles. Also, the early trucks had a flywheel spacer built in, making it so the 4l80e is pretty much your only tranny option.

So did all 99-00 5.3 have iron heads?...cuz I got a 99 5.3 and I was told it has aluminum heads...also my flywheel doesn't have a spacer

[BR3W CITY]

Originally Posted by ivorton74

So did all 99-00 5.3 have iron heads?...cuz I got a 99 5.3 and I was told it has aluminum heads...also my flywheel doesn't have a spacer

That only applies to the 6L's

[KMC3420]

Thanks guys. That is the info I was needing. I am going to have my guy look for an 04 or 05 as a start then go from there out of a truck. 5.3 would be my first choice. I don't have plans or the funds to add a turbo or anything at this time so that's not an issue. I just want a dependable DD for now.

[KMC3420]

Thanks for the tips. I have intentions of getting everything from the same truck. Hopefully it won't be too difficult.

[KMC3420]

66lsx. Your install looks very clean. Nice job.

[ivorton74]

ohh my bad

[BR3W CITY]

Originally Posted by ivorton74

ohh my bad

I should've specified, for whatever reason I thought I had implied it. Reading it back, I just said "Truck".