Welcome to Camaro Z28!

Welcome to CamaroZ28.Com, the ultimate Source for Camaro enthusiasts! Here you can join over 90,000 Camaro enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to Camaros and more. You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
  • Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from over 5 million posts.
  • Upload your Camaro details to your Garage
  • Post photos, respond to polls and access other special features
  • Gain access to our free marketplace to buy, sell and trade Camaros, parts and more.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so join our community today today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support.


Go Back   CamaroZ28.Com Message Board > Community > Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Reply Post New Thread
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-21-2010, 07:52 AM   #16
Registered User
 
Jason E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Southampton, Taxachusetts
Posts: 3,368
I have taken in recently 2 2010 Silverados on trade...both WT 1500 reg cab 4x4s. One had a 4.3, the other a 4.8. For the extra $795 or whatever GM charges for the 4.8 these days, I cannot imagine suffering with a 4.3.

That engine is ridiculously loud, thirsty, and I cannot imagine why GM thinks this engine should continue in any vehicle. Period.
This ad is not displayed to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on CamaroZ28.com!
__________________
'88 IROC-Z - Medium Grey, Grey cloth, L98, t-tops, 22k miles - Stock
'97 30th Z28 - White/Orange, White leather, M6, t-tops, 72k miles - Bolt ons
'00 SS - Black, Tan leather, M6, t-tops, 10k miles - OEM SLP goodies
'07 GMC 2500 W/T Duramax -Red, 89k miles - Diablo tune, 3" lift on 33s
Jason E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 08:18 AM   #17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Chadwick View Post
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.
The 3.8 litre I mentioned in my post was the HF V6, not the old Buick motor. GM was working on a slightly larger version of the DOHC 3.6, but it never saw the light of day. Resurrecting that would make for a torquey enough motor for truck duty.
__________________
2009 G8 GT
R377 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 09:31 AM   #18
Registered User
 
Z28x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,300
Send a message via AIM to Z28x
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason E View Post
I have taken in recently 2 2010 Silverados on trade...both WT 1500 reg cab 4x4s. One had a 4.3, the other a 4.8. For the extra $795 or whatever GM charges for the 4.8 these days, I cannot imagine suffering with a 4.3.

That engine is ridiculously loud, thirsty, and I cannot imagine why GM thinks this engine should continue in any vehicle. Period.
Both engines get worse mileage than the 5.3L. That makes them both obsolete. The best solution for a fuel efficient base engine would be a diesel 4cyl. The 3.0L unit they use in the Australian and Asian Colorado puts out 270 lb·ft of torque. The Colorado is rated 27mpg US with that engine (8.5L/100km)
__________________
2013 Ford Edge SEL AWD
previous cars:
2005 Ford Focus ST - 2000 Silverado 4x4 W/T - 2005 Chevy Colorado Z71 Crew Cab
2000 Camaro SS - 1999 Grand Prix GT - 1994 Camaro Z28
Z28x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 12:22 PM   #19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,003
Send a message via AIM to HAZ-Matt
Diesel 4 cylinder is an interesting idea, but I doubt GM would bring one over and spend the money to set it up for emissions to be the base motor.

As far as all the torque the 4.3L makes, it is rated at 195HP @ 4600RPM and 260lbft @ 2800RPM. The 3.6L in the Holdens is rated at 281HP @ 6400RPM and 258lbft @ 2900RPM. That's hardly any difference in low end torque, with a lot more torque higher in the rev range as evidenced by the power. Going with a variant in US spec, then the motors are rated 288HP @ 6300RPM and 270lbft @ 3400RPM (with dual exhaust in the cute utes). No, I don't know what the exact torque figure is at 2800RPM, but it is more than likely adequate. And again you are making more torque for a lot more of the rev range. With the 3.6L you could also take better advantage of gearing compared to the ancient 4.3L.

There is absolutely no reason to keep the 4.3L around due to any performance metric. It is simply very cheap.
__________________
Matt
2001 Formula

SOM FQuick Group FullThrottleV6 - The V6 Source
HAZ-Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 12:24 PM   #20
Registered User
 
96_Camaro_B4C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt View Post
Diesel 4 cylinder is an interesting idea, but I doubt GM would bring one over and spend the money to set it up for emissions to be the base motor.

As far as all the torque the 4.3L makes, it is rated at 195HP @ 4600RPM and 260lbft @ 2800RPM. The 3.6L in the Holdens is rated at 281HP @ 6400RPM and 258lbft @ 2900RPM. That's hardly any difference in low end torque, with a lot more torque higher in the rev range as evidenced by the power. Going with a variant in US spec, then the motors are rated 288HP @ 6300RPM and 270lbft @ 3400RPM (with dual exhaust in the cute utes). No, I don't know what the exact torque figure is at 2800RPM, but it is more than likely adequate. And again you are making more torque for a lot more of the rev range. With the 3.6L you could also take better advantage of gearing compared to the ancient 4.3L.

There is absolutely no reason to keep the 4.3L around due to any performance metric. It is simply very cheap.
Exactly.
__________________
Joe
'96 Camaro B4C M6, White, 108k (no police use ever!), K&N FIPK, TB Bypass, Flowmaster, CAGS Elim., ZR1 SS wheels
'05 Colorado ECSB ZZ1 2WD M5, 60k
96_Camaro_B4C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 12:52 PM   #21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Chadwick View Post
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 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.
When will we expect this replacement?

I'm wondering why the I5 couldn't be used as a replacement for the 4.3L. Cheaper than the I6, nearly the same power and torque as the 4.3L. Colorado/Canyon are going away, so it would no longer have a home.
rlchv70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 12:58 PM   #22
Registered User
 
96_Camaro_B4C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,654
They need to follow Ford's lead and drop some version of the 3.6L DOHC family into the trucks. The 4.8L could be dropped entirely. As could the 6.0L V8, really.

3.xL V6, 5.3L V8, 6.2L V8
__________________
Joe
'96 Camaro B4C M6, White, 108k (no police use ever!), K&N FIPK, TB Bypass, Flowmaster, CAGS Elim., ZR1 SS wheels
'05 Colorado ECSB ZZ1 2WD M5, 60k
96_Camaro_B4C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 01:37 PM   #23
Registered User
 
formula79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,700
All the V6's are work truck models. These are dirt cheap, vinyl seats, FM radio only, less than $20K pickups that businsess like NAPA use for delivery. Here price is the overriding factory. Not comfort or features. They sell these to fleets. I doubt many go to actual consumers because you can get a pretty nice V8 used truck for less.

Just looked, and a "work truck" starts at $20K. The next step up is an LS Truck with the 4.8L (never understodd why this engine exists) that is over $30K.

That being said, I would expect a higher focus on V6 powered trucks in the next generation to meet CAFE standards.
__________________
2006 Pontiac GTO M6, 18" Wheels, Stay Tuned...
2004 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP Comp G 260HP V6 - Loaded
2005 Chevy Equinox LT ****** Blue - Loaded

Branden
Founder/Editor
www.GMInsidenews.com * www.NewAgeGTO.com
formula79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 01:47 PM   #24
Registered User
 
Z28x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,300
Send a message via AIM to Z28x
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula79 View Post
That being said, I would expect a higher focus on V6 powered trucks in the next generation to meet CAFE standards.
CAFE is another reason to dump the 4.3L, that thing is a pig. It gets worse mileage than the 5.3L.

In a 4x4 truck:
5.3L = 21mpg hwy
6.2L = 19mpg hwy
4.3L = 18mpg hwy
__________________
2013 Ford Edge SEL AWD
previous cars:
2005 Ford Focus ST - 2000 Silverado 4x4 W/T - 2005 Chevy Colorado Z71 Crew Cab
2000 Camaro SS - 1999 Grand Prix GT - 1994 Camaro Z28
Z28x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 02:07 PM   #25
Registered User
 
formula79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,700
I would be intersted to see how many of these trucks GM sells. But again, when the GMT900 was in development, CAFE was not the issue it will be for the new trucks they will be working on now. Only reason the 4.3L exists is because it is dirt cheap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z28x View Post
CAFE is another reason to dump the 4.3L, that thing is a pig. It gets worse mileage than the 5.3L.

In a 4x4 truck:
5.3L = 21mpg hwy
6.2L = 19mpg hwy
4.3L = 18mpg hwy
__________________
2006 Pontiac GTO M6, 18" Wheels, Stay Tuned...
2004 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP Comp G 260HP V6 - Loaded
2005 Chevy Equinox LT ****** Blue - Loaded

Branden
Founder/Editor
www.GMInsidenews.com * www.NewAgeGTO.com
formula79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 02:32 PM   #26
Registered User
 
jg95z28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,719
Send a message via AIM to jg95z28
Quote:
Originally Posted by 96_Camaro_B4C View Post
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.


FWIW, I've have owned both the 4.3L V6 and the 4.8L V8 in Chevrolet trucks ('96 Blazer & '02 Tahoe, respectively.) Both were (are) great engines and were reliable and performed well while I owned them. (I still own the Tahoe, its my daily driver and has almost 150k miles on it.) However neither ever got the greatest gas mileage, but then, who the heck buys a truck for great gas mileage? I do admit that I chose the 4.8L V8 for the Tahoe because it was slightly cheaper than the 5.3L but had almost as much torque, and I was hoping would get slightly better fuel mileage. While it did get over 18mpg in the first year, since then, I get 15mpg average, no matter how I drive it. I also had a '01 Tahoe with the 5.3L for almost 2-years (yes, at the same time as the '02 with the 4.8L) and didn't notice a huge difference between the performance and fuel mileage of both motors. (The 5.3L was 4WD and had some performance add-ons as well.)

If I we're buying a full-size truck today, I'd lean toward the 5.3L V8, however if there was an option for a DI V6 that got near equal performance, I'd consider it as well.

That said, the 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 have been great engines for me over the years. While they may both be "dated" and need modern replacements, to say they should be "dumped" suggests they were crappy engines, and in my experience, nothing could be further from the truth.
__________________
My Current Chevys:
1967 Camaro Coupe - 350HO/TKO-500 (Old Blue)
1967 Camaro RS - 327/PG (Goldie)
1995 Camaro Z28 - LT1/A4 (Norma Jean)
2002 Tahoe LS 2WD - LR4/A4 (The Big Red Truck)
jg95z28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 03:34 PM   #27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,003
Send a message via AIM to HAZ-Matt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z28x View Post
CAFE is another reason to dump the 4.3L, that thing is a pig. It gets worse mileage than the 5.3L.

In a 4x4 truck:
5.3L = 21mpg hwy
6.2L = 19mpg hwy
4.3L = 18mpg hwy
I think the 4.3L only gets an old 4 speed auto to go with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg95z28 View Post
That said, the 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 have been great engines for me over the years. While they may both be "dated" and need modern replacements, to say they should be "dumped" suggests they were crappy engines, and in my experience, nothing could be further from the truth.
My parents had a 1989 Astro and 1990 1500 that both had the 4.3L (granted, a bit different than the one that is out now). Both did in fact run well for 10 yrs until they were sold. But it was over 10 yrs ago when they sold those trucks, and 20yrs when they bought them originally.
__________________
Matt
2001 Formula

SOM FQuick Group FullThrottleV6 - The V6 Source

Last edited by HAZ-Matt; 10-21-2010 at 06:19 PM.
HAZ-Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 05:56 PM   #28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Arcadia, OK
Posts: 669
My 07 4.8 NBS Silverado gets almost exactly 2 mpg worse mileage than my 08 NBS Sierra 5.3 did under the same driving routine. I believe AFM was responsible for most of that (most of my driving is ~60 mph rural highway, where AFM really works).
__________________
2011 GMC Sierra SLE ~ 2011 Ford Taurus SEL AWD
routesixtysixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 06:22 PM   #29
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,713
Send a message via AIM to guionM Send a message via Yahoo to guionM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Chadwick View Post
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.
Couple of items.

First, the V6 that the 3.8 V6 came out in the early 1960s. It was sold to Jeep in the mid-60s and bought back from AMC by GM in the early 70s. The 1971 Jeep CJ6 was the last AMC that had the GM designed V6.

Needless to say, it was designed for RWD applications.

It actually had to be adapted for use in FWD vehicles.


Second, the profit margins on pickup trucks are huge compared to cars. So is the volume. That's why all 3 US automakers based their business models on trucks at the expense of cars until just recently. The issue with the engines that go into trucks is that these engines must be able to withstand abuse far and away in worse manners than they every will see in cars in their nightmares.

A DI 3.6 DOHC engine is perfectly fine in a Camaro where the worse daily use thing it might have to contend with is being floored to get a 3800 pound Camaro or at worse, a 4000 pound Cadillac to freeway speeds. But how will that engine hold up in a 5,000 pound truck carrying 1,800 pounds of equptment in it's bed (or a 2,000 pound trailer) up, say, the long grade of California's I5 in 101 degree weather?

Some time in the future, GM will almost certainly come up with a heavy duty version of the DOHC DI 3.6 for use in it's trucks. It will most likely have thicker internals, better cooling, and will have different cams for a focus on torque over horsepower. It will weigh a little more than the car version as most engines do that are in both.


Finally, the Atlas is a victim of limited practicality.

It was good in mid sized trucks. But the ability to use it in passenger cars doesn't exist. In full size trucks, it's cheaper to use V6s off of cars and create versions for large trucks (and use the same tooling and assembly line) than it is to do a single engine that can be used only in one application (and need it's own tooling, assembly line, etc...).

Ford of Australia phased out their absolutely excellent I6 line in favor of Ford's new Duratec for much the same reason: simplicity and lower cost to the company as a whole (Ford would have had to spring to certify the I6 to Euro emissions standards which Australia was adopting).


Personally, I think an updated version of the Atlas I6 would form an excellent engine for GM's upcoming Alpha cars to be based around. I think they should do a whole series (including twin turbos) just like Ford of Australia did with their straight 6.

But my view in this instance would make little business or practical sense because GM already has an excellent, powerful, and proven V6 that is in wider use.
__________________
Don't whine... Deal with it!!!

'97 Camaro Z28 6 speed (SOLD)
'89 Thunderbird SC (manual)
'93 Thunderbird SC (auto)
2002 CHP B4C (auto)


"...what the Thunderbird SC does best: look great and go fast. Very very fast....responds as if it had a 747 engine on it's roof"

"Better still is this big bruiser's balence...nose and tail bite as one."

"...the big paradox in the SC's character. It's better at going haywire fast than driving slow." (Car and Driver, March 1989)
guionM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 01:33 AM   #30
Registered User
 
MustangEater82's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,763
Send a message via AIM to MustangEater82
The 3.8L sucked at low end... (who woudl ahve though from an OHV v6)

not that it matters, I remember going from my 3.4L (had a torqiuer cam then the average 60* v6) and it had alot more grunt down low compared to the 3.8L) Though the 3.8L did make more power overall.

**** with a really open exhaust the 3.8L kind of sucked down low, never could compare it to a 4.3L


Do agree.. an LSx 4.3L(or other displacement) style v6 woudl be interesting.
__________________
-2000 Monterey Maroon Metallic 3.8L 5-spd Chevy Camaro
-2007 Pontiac G6 Sedan 3.5LVVT
-Former cars of interest, '85 Camaro, '94 Camaro, '00 Camaro, '92 Mustang GT
MustangEater82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 01:33 AM
 
Reply Post New Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:15 AM.


Copyright © 1996-2013 CamaroZ28.Com. All rights reserved.

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.