I wanted it more so for 'pick-up' when passing, climbing steep grades, and the like.
I was trying to get across that there just isn't a big difference between the two; the 6.0L is just a bored-out 5.3L. Have the 2004 specs in front of me here...
5.3L: 3.78" bore, 3.62" stroke
6.0L: 4" bore x 3.62" stroke
As one would figure from those numbers, output is a little higher on the six liter, but peak torque RPM is the same on both @ 4000.
Seems like guys on here try to sell these as some sort of SUV panacea, but (as the owner of one), I'd have to disagree; they are terrifically versatile though. Like a "jack of all trades, master of none".
.Every time you stop and start again you've got to get nearly 3 tons of sheet metal moving - that's going to use a lot of fuel.
+1 on that.
GM put curb weight at 5800. Real world numbers (like the link posted below) are up at 6300. I've ran mine across the scale empty (other than fuel/basic supplies), and was a bit above that.
At the end of the day, it's a small-block, naturally-aspirated gas engine...there's only so much it can do. Throw high(er) 3.73 axle gearing into the mix, 4L80E ratios (like the 2.48 first), a truck full of people/gear and a trailer in tow, and folks (especially those coming from modern turbo diesels) aren't terribly pleased.
http://media.caranddriver.com/files...-expedition-gmc-yukoncall-of-the-canyon-4.pdf
My Z71 with the 5.3 averaged mid 10's to mid 11's around town, and up to maybe 15 on the highway if I kept speeds reasonable. The small lift, larger MT tires and front and rear Ranch Hand bumpers killed my mileage.
Yep. While modern turbo-diesels with massive off-idle torque have a bunch of leeway (for lifts, bigger tires, etc.), you really have a tight range with these before falling out of optimum operating conditions/range.