TrailBlazer 4.2L upgraded to 291hp

http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/images/lightduty/graytabs/powercurves/2006_4200_LL8_TrailBlazer.jpg

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16793

So could a 240HP I5 and 195HP I4 be far behind?

So would people here, who have dogged the I5 pretty badly, bad mouth a 245 hp version?

So would people here, who have dogged the I5 pretty badly, bad mouth a 245 hp version?

Yeah because a 20hp increase is going to make it godlike in their eyes right? People complain about anything they can. Someone will say its not enough, just watch.

Yeah because a 20hp increase is going to make it godlike in their eyes right? People complain about anything they can. Someone will say its not enough, just watch.

LOL... you are right. People will complain until the I5 is putting aout at least LT1 #'s :D ;)

In 2004, 220HP was the most powerful compact puckup engine ever built (that isn't a V8 or Turbo V6)

245HP would put the I5 at the same level as Toyota Tacomas V6

LOL... you are right. People will complain until the I5 is putting aout at least LT1 #'s :D ;)

In 2004, 220HP was the most powerful compact puckup engine ever built (that isn't a V8 or Turbo V6)

245HP would put the I5 at the same level as Toyota Tacomas V6
And in the smaller lighter truck it would have better acceleration and fuel mileage than the Toyota, much less the Dakota.

But guys, the Colorado needs to have 1,000 HP so I can install wings and use it to fly to the moon; get it right! ;)

On a side note and not to take this post off topic, but does anyone else think these "Horsepower" wars are ridiculous???

I think Automakers are heading in the COMPLETE WRONG direction right now. Instead of wasting all of they're time seeing how big of an engine or how much horsepower they can get why not put that R&D into Fuel economy.

I think GM would be much better off if they offered "ENOUGH" horsepower to get the job done - and at the same time offer class leading FUEL ECONOMY. They would QUICKLY gain market share back. The foreign automakers seem to be falling into the horsepower wars alittle themselves. Why not take advantage and swing it in your favor by stomping them on Fuel Economy.

That doesn't mean that you can't create a "fast" vehicle. But my compact pickup does not need to be able to pull a semi trailer or do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds.

I don't know; maybe I'm showing my age (24). [Or maybe I'm not in college anymore living on my parents buck either...;)] IMO.

On a side note and not to take this post off topic, but does anyone else think these "Horsepower" wars are ridiculous???

I think Automakers are heading in the COMPLETE WRONG direction right now. Instead of wasting all of they're time seeing how big of an engine or how much horsepower they can get why not put that R&D into Fuel economy.

I think GM would be much better off if they offered "ENOUGH" horsepower to get the job done - and at the same time offer class leading FUEL ECONOMY. They would QUICKLY gain market share back. The foreign automakers seem to be falling into the horsepower wars alittle themselves. Why not take advantage and swing it in your favor by stomping them on Fuel Economy.

That doesn't mean that you can't create a "fast" vehicle. But my compact pickup does not need to be able to pull a semi trailer or do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds.

I don't know; maybe I'm showing my age (24). [Or maybe I'm not in college anymore living on my parents buck either...;)] IMO.

Its that kind of thinking that killed the first muscle care era!!! Really though, I agree with you on some vehicles it does not make sense to go overboard on HP. For instance the h3 that was being complained about last week. The I5 is pleanty for it but everyone wants it to be 320hp instead of 220hp. I just dont get it.

Wasn't it gas prices and Govt regulations that killed it???

Well if things keep going at the current pace the Govt will have to step in. A 16 year old kid with a family car that has the hp/pound ratio of a LS6 Chevelle = bad combination.

On a side note and not to take this post off topic, but does anyone else think these "Horsepower" wars are ridiculous???

I think Automakers are heading in the COMPLETE WRONG direction right now. Instead of wasting all of they're time seeing how big of an engine or how much horsepower they can get why not put that R&D into Fuel economy.

I think GM would be much better off if they offered "ENOUGH" horsepower to get the job done - and at the same time offer class leading FUEL ECONOMY. They would QUICKLY gain market share back. The foreign automakers seem to be falling into the horsepower wars alittle themselves. Why not take advantage and swing it in your favor by stomping them on Fuel Economy.

That doesn't mean that you can't create a "fast" vehicle. But my compact pickup does not need to be able to pull a semi trailer or do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds.

I don't know; maybe I'm showing my age (24). [Or maybe I'm not in college anymore living on my parents buck either...;)] IMO.

Well said, coming from another 24 year old.

On a side note and not to take this post off topic, but does anyone else think these "Horsepower" wars are ridiculous???

I think Automakers are heading in the COMPLETE WRONG direction right now. Instead of wasting all of they're time seeing how big of an engine or how much horsepower they can get why not put that R&D into Fuel economy.

I think GM would be much better off if they offered "ENOUGH" horsepower to get the job done - and at the same time offer class leading FUEL ECONOMY. They would QUICKLY gain market share back. The foreign automakers seem to be falling into the horsepower wars alittle themselves. Why not take advantage and swing it in your favor by stomping them on Fuel Economy.

That doesn't mean that you can't create a "fast" vehicle. But my compact pickup does not need to be able to pull a semi trailer or do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds.

I don't know; maybe I'm showing my age (24). [Or maybe I'm not in college anymore living on my parents buck either...;)] IMO.

For sports and sporty cars and performance trucks the HP war is great :bow:

but for main stream vehicles the current power levels are just fine and actually better than they have ever been. Look at how many gerocery getters are in the 14's. I worry that if cheap every day cars get too fast our "let me control your life" Gov't will step in an protect up from our selves. :(

Look at how many gerocery getters are in the 14's. I worry that if cheap every day cars get too fast our "let me control your life" Gov't will step in an protect up from our selves. :(

Exactly. A "Grocery getter" does not need to be a 14s car. It needs to be able to get out of its own way - no more, no less.

This is also another reason that the SS should have engine options. My mother has bought two new Monte Carlo SS vehicles in the last 3-4 years (02 -Trade-in upgrade to 04'). Anyhow, she loves the SS vehicle for it's options and looks (and "status"). But if they offer the SS in a V8 option only she will /not/ buy another one.

On the flip side, I don't care if they make a Camaro with so much horsepower that you hit the gas and the tires dig a hole in the asphalt and you have to pull a 50 gallon trailer of race gas with you. Don't care.

But Concentrate on Fuel Economy/Fuel Economy............ for Standard Transportation. If anybody that says they are pleased with current fuel economy numbers for any standard domestic/import vehicle needs to be knocked over the head with Tire Iron.

With the techologies today we should be at 40-50mpg. Not stuck in early 80's economy numbers.

Exactly. A "Grocery getter" does not need to be a 14s car. It needs to be able to get out of its own way - no more, no less.

This is also another reason that the SS should have engine options. My mother has bought two new Monte Carlo SS vehicles in the last 3-4 years (02 -Trade-in upgrade to 04'). Anyhow, she loves the SS vehicle for it's options and looks (and "status"). But if they offer the SS in a V8 option only she will /not/ buy another one.

On the flip side, I don't care if they make a Camaro with so much horsepower that you hit the gas and the tires dig a hole in the asphalt and you have to pull a 50 gallon trailer of race gas with you. Don't care.

But Concentrate on Fuel Economy/Fuel Economy............ for Standard Transportation. If anybody that says they are please with current fuel economy numbers for any standard domestic vehicle needs to be knocked over the head with Tire Iron.

With the techologies today we should be at 40-50mpg. Not stuck in early 80's economy numbers.

The fuel economy on domestics is not really worse then imports.

Rephrase (Domestic or Imports). :)

If you've been paying attention the last 10 years, you'll see that automakers have found a way to increase both horsepower AND fuel economy. Back in 1992-1993 during the opening years of the LT1 did anybody envision a 400 HP small block capable of getting ~30 mpg on the highway like the LS2 does in the Corvette? Don't let the trucks/SUV's and their 5000 pounds of girth give you the wrong impression about how all big horsepower engines have to suck gas.

That doesn't mean that you can't create a "fast" vehicle. But my compact pickup does not need to be able to pull a semi trailer or do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds.

I totally agree, however, when the competitions (Ford, Chrysler, Nissan and Toyota) "compact" pickups have available tow ratings from 6,000 to 7,000 lbs, and my old Sonoma can pull 5,000, WHY has GM decided to go with a 4,000 pound max on the Colorado? Most people that want to tow will buy a full-size truck?!? I tend to disagree, and would suggest that GM needs to remain segment competitive in order to retain their EXISTING customer base.

I totally agree, however, when the competitions (Ford, Chrysler, Nissan and Toyota) "compact" pickups have available tow ratings from 6,000 to 7,000 lbs, and my old Sonoma can pull 5,000, WHY has GM decided to go with a 4,000 pound max on the Colorado? Most people that want to tow will buy a full-size truck?!? I tend to disagree, and would suggest that GM needs to remain segment competitive in order to retain their EXISTING customer base.

2 reasons (that I know of) emissions, and for a suspession tuned for better ride. GM has said that the Colorado tow rating will be going up in the future. Thats not to say you can't tow more. A lot of people on Coloradofans.com have tow 5,000 no problem.

2 reasons (that I know of) emissions, and for a suspession tuned for better ride. GM has said that the Colorado tow rating will be going up in the future. Thats not to say you can't tow more. A lot of people on Coloradofans.com have tow 5,000 no problem.

I have a hard time understanding how emissions could be a factor ...

How difficult is it to have a towing option set of springs and shocks ...

Here in Manitoba if we get caught towing more than the manufacturer rating we get expensive tickets. That's not a chance I'm willing to take ....

Towing more than rated has warranty implications ...

If the rating goes up I may look at replacing the Sonoma.

The whole compact truck thing has gotten totally off track. I think Ford, by leaving the Ranger a small, underpowered, cheap POS may corner a sub compact truck market.

At this point, there's NO reason to buy a compact truck over a full size. They're almost as big, have almost as much HP, get almost the same crappy mileage, and cost as much if not more.

I agree with you on some vehicles it does not make sense to go overboard on HP. For instance the h3 that was being complained about last week. The I5 is pleanty for it but everyone wants it to be 320hp instead of 220hp. I just dont get it.

300hp on the H3 wouldn't be going overboard, it'd be at where it should have been to begin with. The thing has a 0-60 in the 10's. It could barely get out of its own way. None is asking for a hot-rod, just a vehicle you don't have to revv the sh!t out of. Adequate hp has real life uses like highway merging, etc...

In the end, 220hp and 225lb-ft of tq isn't enough in a 4,700lb SUV. You've got SUV's like the Toyota Hybrid Highlander today that'll knock off 6.6 second 0-60's while averaging near 30mpg. Performance and economy. If you're going to create a 4700lb pig, you had better back it up with enough power.

Good news on the 4.2 receiving a jump to 291hp. That'll make it competitive with the new 4.6 294hp Explorers.

So is there any use in offering the 5.3 if it is only going to offer 9 extra horses?

So is there any use in offering the 5.3 if it is only going to offer 9 extra horses?

T-O-R-Q-U-E

The whole compact truck thing has gotten totally off track. I think Ford, by leaving the Ranger a small, underpowered, cheap POS may corner a sub compact truck market. The Colorado is just wide enough for me too (they paint spots tight at my work :mad: ) Seats 5 nicely yet is 18" shorter than a Silverado Crew which is good for city parking.

At this point, there's NO reason to buy a compact truck over a full size. They're almost as big, have almost as much HP, get almost the same crappy mileage, and cost as much if not more.

Good point, that is one reason I like the colorado. It is just the right size for a compact truck. Has anyone seen the Tacoma crew with the 6' bed? whats the point, it is as long as a Silverado Crew and cost just as much, but with no V8.

The 291HP I6 is a great move, Nissan and Toyota were starting to catch up with there new 4.0L V6's.

So is there any use in offering the 5.3 if it is only going to offer 9 extra horses?

4.2L = 277tq
5.3L = 330tq

look for the 5.3L to go up in HP when the GMT900's come out.

T-O-R-Q-U-E

In my haste I over looked that on the webpage. Gets a big "duh" on my part.

Something interesting I never noticed... the I6 makes its max torque lower than the 5.3 (3600 rpm vs. 4000) but max hp is higher (6000 vs 5200).

Must have a pretty good looking torque curve.

So would people here, who have dogged the I5 pretty badly, bad mouth a 245 hp version?

It's more about what it's used in.

An I5 at 245 horses would be outstanding in a 3200 pound pony car.

An I5 that puts out 225 lbs/ft of torque in a 4000 pound Colorado is lackluster, but OK.

An I5 with those numbers in a 4770 pound Hummer H3 is simply boneheaded.

In my haste I over looked that on the webpage. Gets a big "duh" on my part.

Something interesting I never noticed... the I6 makes its max torque lower than the 5.3 (3600 rpm vs. 4000) but max hp is higher (6000 vs 5200).

Must have a pretty good looking torque curve.

It would be interesting to overlay the 2 torque curves. Regardless of peak, I suspect the 5.3 would be superior throughout the range. IMO the 5.3 probably sounds a lot better too! :)

From my experience the I6 is a fine motor and as packaged in our Envoy, with 4.10 gears, is quite adequate for trailering a Camaro.

The question that comes to mind for me is why didn't GM use the GMT 360/370 platform for the Colorado/Canyon?

On a side note and not to take this post off topic, but does anyone else think these "Horsepower" wars are ridiculous???

I think Automakers are heading in the COMPLETE WRONG direction right now. Instead of wasting all of they're time seeing how big of an engine or how much horsepower they can get why not put that R&D into Fuel economy.

I think GM would be much better off if they offered "ENOUGH" horsepower to get the job done - and at the same time offer class leading FUEL ECONOMY. They would QUICKLY gain market share back. The foreign automakers seem to be falling into the horsepower wars alittle themselves. Why not take advantage and swing it in your favor by stomping them on Fuel Economy.

To a large extent, it's not the horsepower rating that dictates fuel economy; it's the weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle. As someone noted above, a 400 hp Corvette gets close to 30 mpg while 200 hp SUVs barely break out of the teens. It comes down to simple physics: it takes x amount of power to accelerate a vehicle to speed and keep it there. Whether you get that power with a 400 hp V8 loafing along or a 4-banger working its guts out is not a big deal (excepting frictional and pumping losses).

In other words, these high HP motors come at virtually no penalty, so why settle for less?

i think the super tall 6th gear in the vette might help.

i think the super tall 6th gear in the vette might help.

Well sure it helps, but you also need quite a bit of torque to keep the car motivated along the highway in that steep 6th gear. Which brings me back to high HP cars which are also able to sip gas. :D

It's more about what it's used in.

An I5 that puts out 225 lbs/ft of torque in a 4000 pound Colorado is lackluster, but OK.

I have the heaviest config and I just set a personal milage record in the truck 21mpg , 387mi. on 18.4 gallons. 120mi. of 80mph road trip, then the rest was a ~50/50 city/hwy mix. I have the 3.73 gears.

Hopfully a bump up to 240HP/240tq will give it that extra they many are looking for. (although a 4.8L V8 would be nice)

I think the I-5 is perfectly fine for the lighter versions of the Colorado. However, a V8 option is a must if you're going to be moving a 4000lb+ truck or H3.

I was talking to a friend about the H3 , when he proceded to trash the I5. I though I heard quite a while back before they were out that it could be taken to 300 H.p. I could be wrong but is it really that far of a stretch? And wouldn't a 300H.P. I 5 be a little cool! I can remember telling my buddies right around 98 or so, about how I thought they could take the new "SB" mill to 500 H.P. N/A! Of course they all said I was nutz :p (some were into Mustangs singin' songs of the 4.6L ). Who's laughin' Now! Thanks GM for proving me right! C6 Z06 :bow: I am not opposed to the new Staight motors at all. I think they took a lesson from the old straight motors that would run forever, only now we got modern electronics, and reliablity is much better. A bump to 291 for the I6 is great. Having a V8 optional though in the colorado does really help out the enthusiast because then you have GM quality swap parts! Like the old Monza/Vega! :eek: Huh Huh! :p Like with the SSR early H.P. #'s really hurt its sales IMHO. They were just testing the waters, #'s usually go up, I would hope no one wants a repeat of The Ol' Gobmnt regulashuns days, so you can start to understand why they should stay conservative on H.P. early on and gradually increase! ROCK/GM/HARDPLACE! How bout if we get everyone to finally make the switch to Torque!!!, come on its much more fun! :D Say it Torque! Its where its at! Even if it only buys us some time, what the Hell! Anyway MPG isn't near as bad as most ppl think, what are you guys gettin' in your T/56 LT1's? I think I'm getting atleast 25 or so when we stay out of it! If I tell someone that they look at me like I have 3 heads! With this new crop of engines I5,I6, V8,(V16 or V12), DoD, and transmissions coming it should prove to get even better in all areas MPG, H.P., T.Q.! Give them a chance ppl! When the 4.2 I6 Trailblazer/Envoy was rated at the same H.P. as our 94 Z/28 stock I thought that was pretty good!

Its that kind of thinking that killed the first muscle care era!!! Really though, I agree with you on some vehicles it does not make sense to go overboard on HP. For instance the h3 that was being complained about last week. The I5 is pleanty for it but everyone wants it to be 320hp instead of 220hp. I just dont get it.


its not the hp of the H3's 5 cly thats the problem. Its the weight of the H3--a terrbile power to weight ratio. Even people who don't care much about power want a vehcile that has decent passing power.

I can just see this H3 struggling up hills on the Trans Canada highway into the Rocky mountains.

Todays engines have hp and fuel economy that were only dreamnt about in the 60's/70s. Not to mention that they are hundreds of times cleaner, in the emissions dept.

Now some automakes are getting pretty crazy with power, Mercedes in paticular. But a 291 hp Trailblazer is not extreme at all.