Z28x

Now that the F-150 has a 305HP 3.7L V6 will GM use the 3.6L V6 in their full sized trucks? 3.6L should replace both the 4.3L and 4.8L engines. That or add DI to the 4.2L strait six.

Even better would be to have the 3.0L 4cy. diesel as the base engine.

JakeRobb

The 3.6L lacks the down-low torque you want in a truck.

To be honest, it lacks the down-low torque I want in my Aura.

The diesel would likely be a different story.

ImportedRoomate

That would be cool. It already makes 290hp as it is, and got 14/21mpg in the Trailblazer. Adding DI and throwing a 6sp behind it would improve its efficiency. A normally aspirated 320-340hp I6 with comparable efficiency to Ford's? That could put it back on the Wards best engines list if they do it right.

Anomaly

Why doesn't GM just make a "modern" day 4.3L, remove 2 cylinders off of a LS based motor?

toneloc12345

I've been thinking this for years!!!

take a 6.2 and hack off 2 cylinders.... Should be around 300hp. Though the 4.3 is still pretty competitive in Torque with 260lb/ft

Plague

Good thing that the 3.6L he is talking about is the DI version of the 3.6L, you know the one in the Lambdas has much more torque. It would probably do well as the base engine, but I think it is more expensive.

Z28x

Yes, any new engine application should be DI. I rented a 2010 Acadia for 2 weeks and didn't feel it lacked torque.

R377

I think the days of automakers creating a V6 from a 90° V8 are long gone. Too many compromises to deal with in terms of balance and NVH.

The 3.8 litre version of the HF V6 likely would've worked okay in a pickup, perhaps that's something GM could ponder if Ford's 3.7 does well.

guionM

There is a ton of work to do taking that route far beyond simply lopping off 2 cylinders. If it was that easy, GM would have done it long time ago.

.....Actually, they did do something like this... back in the 80s. The 262 V6 was essentially a 350 missing 2 cylinders. Ford did the same thing with the 3.8 hich was essentially a 5.0.

As R377 pointed out, taking a smooth, even firing V8 and turning it into a V6 opens it up to a lot of NVH that may have been acceptable back in the 80s and most of the 90s, but it simply isn't tolerated in modern V6 engines today.

toneloc12345

Isn't the 4.3 basically a gen II 350 with a couple cyl. hacked off? I'm pretty sure all the atlas engines are basically the same, only with 4,5, and 6 cylinders...

If the 4.3 is still acceptable I'd guess a LS based V6 would be just fine...

96_Camaro_B4C

That's what he is referring to.

The 4.3L V6 (which is still being used, amazingly, after all these years) was a Gen I 350 ci small block with two cylinders lopped off. He was asking about doing the same thing in a "modern" sense by using the very modern LSx series as a starting point.

Z28x

That's the thing, the 4.3L isn't acceptable anymore. Using the 3.6L is probably the cheapest way to go. That or use the 4.2L I6, but that isn't even built anymore, and it needs DI to improve efficiency, in 2009 it got worse mileage than the 5.3L.

Geoff Chadwick

The 3.6L DI DOHC V6 is too expensive for the truck profit margins they want, as was the 4.2L I6 Atlas engine. The Atlas was a neat idea, it just was terrible in too many ways.

The 3.8L engine might have been okay, but lacked the low end grunt of the 4.3L and was never intended for a RWD application, good thought though. Still, the 3.8L is even phased out of GM's lineup.

Making the 4.3L V6 one of the oldest production engines GM sticks into production vehicles....

The 4.3L V6 has an upcoming replacement, but it is mind boggling how late to the party it [already] is, and it isn't even here yet.

Zigroid

wasnt the 3.6L able to be bumped up in displacement above 4L? that should produce a nice amount of low end torque with a long runner intake like the LS style truck intakes and it shouldnt need DI to make the torque with the increased displacement.

Z28x

Tell that to Ford. I doubt their 3.7L is any cheaper.

The 3800 was in the Camaro from 1995-2002. That engine didn't offer any advantage over the 4.3L though.