So when is GM going to dump that 4.3L V6?
10-22-2010, 01:48 AM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
10-22-2010, 09:13 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
As has already been mentioned, the 4.3 with it's 4 speed trans is the absolute cheapest possible powertrain for a work truck.
It's probably been 20 years since I drove a 4.3, and even then it seemed coarse, rough and noisy. But, if you want a work truck to hand over to one of your work men, cheap is better than smooth.
It's probably been 20 years since I drove a 4.3, and even then it seemed coarse, rough and noisy. But, if you want a work truck to hand over to one of your work men, cheap is better than smooth.
10-22-2010, 09:28 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,650
As has already been mentioned, the 4.3 with it's 4 speed trans is the absolute cheapest possible powertrain for a work truck.
It's probably been 20 years since I drove a 4.3, and even then it seemed coarse, rough and noisy. But, if you want a work truck to hand over to one of your work men, cheap is better than smooth.
It's probably been 20 years since I drove a 4.3, and even then it seemed coarse, rough and noisy. But, if you want a work truck to hand over to one of your work men, cheap is better than smooth.
But if you drive it like you stole it or put the engine under lots of load and have to listen to it at 4500 rpm at WOT...
It is time for the 4.3L to hang it up and start collecting social security.
10-22-2010, 11:01 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OHIO
Posts: 586
I really don't see how a HF V6 can be cheaper than a 5.3 V8.... I don't think I would get one in a truck either. I prefer simple and reliable over "high feature" in a truck. At least if I plan on owning it out of warranty.
10-22-2010, 11:12 AM
#35
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Ford V6 = 305HP/280tq 16/23mpg
Chevy V6 = 195HP/260tq 15/20mpg
10-22-2010, 12:16 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,000
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.
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.
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.
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...)...
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.
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...)...
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.
10-22-2010, 02:56 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All around
Posts: 2,154
I meant the DOHC 3.8L, my mistake (but the 3.8L designed as a higher displacement 3.6L is already shelved). However, the 3.8L 'Buick' motor was phased out of RWD vehicles. It may have been built for it, but except for the 4th gen V6, it was never intended to be used for RWD again and the support/tooling was used for other purposes. By the time the 3.8L pushrod saw it's last refresh, RWD was long since off the menu.
This is very true, and Ford has jumped and put a more expensive base V6 between the rails - but GM's bean counters really don't want to put a more expensive engine in there and eat up that profit margin. Ford is also currently in a slightly better position than GM (in my mind) and is totally willing to put a few extra dollars [out of their profit margin] on the line to make a better product.
The Atlas wasn't great on fuel economy, had high warranty costs, was extremely tall & long, had problems with axles going through the oil pan, and working on them was more time consuming and expensive than even the pushrod V8s. They also had a limited volume, a limited parts distribution network.... but OTOH, they had great power, were smooth, and it was generally a stout engine. But it's own design (giant I6) led to its demise from the day it was put to production.
Oh, it's not! The DOHC 3.6L is more expensive than the current 5.3L, and I'd bet my hat that it'll be more expensive than the smallest GenV V8 as well. The 4.3L is stupid cheap, which is why we still have it.
The best engine to replace the pushrod 4.3L V6 is another pushrod V6. Just base it off a genV. It'd be simple, it'd be small, it'd be cheap (and likely rough and loud, but who cares for a base model work truck?) and it'd be good for 300hp. Could we ever be so lucky?
The Atlas wasn't great on fuel economy, had high warranty costs, was extremely tall & long, had problems with axles going through the oil pan, and working on them was more time consuming and expensive than even the pushrod V8s. They also had a limited volume, a limited parts distribution network.... but OTOH, they had great power, were smooth, and it was generally a stout engine. But it's own design (giant I6) led to its demise from the day it was put to production.
Oh, it's not! The DOHC 3.6L is more expensive than the current 5.3L, and I'd bet my hat that it'll be more expensive than the smallest GenV V8 as well. The 4.3L is stupid cheap, which is why we still have it.
The best engine to replace the pushrod 4.3L V6 is another pushrod V6. Just base it off a genV. It'd be simple, it'd be small, it'd be cheap (and likely rough and loud, but who cares for a base model work truck?) and it'd be good for 300hp. Could we ever be so lucky?
10-23-2010, 01:20 PM
#39
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
True, but the DI version still reaches its torque peak at a lofty 5200 rpm -- way too high for a truck IMO. The current 4.3L V6, by comparison, reaches its peak at 2800, and gives up only 13 lb-fit relative to the LLT's peak.
10-23-2010, 01:42 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,650
That doesn't reveal the shape of the curve though. If it peaks at 5200 but is also making something similar to the 4.3L at 2800 rpm, it would be more than sufficient.
10-23-2010, 03:08 PM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,000
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.
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.
10-24-2010, 04:35 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
10-24-2010, 05:16 PM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 118
i had a truck with a 4.3L, actaully its still on the road. its a 94 s10 blazer. for the size of the truck it was horrible on gas, which is why i got rid of it. lucky to get 16MPG with it. i replaced it with my 91 cavalier which gets 29 highway. gas was almost $5/gal, and i didnt really need a truck. it was a want more than a need. i sold my blazer to my stepfather, and can say that the 4.3 is certainlly a reliable engine. truck had 75,000 miles on it when i bought it. i rode in it the other day and it now has 154K on it and it still runs great. my 2.2 in my cavy is also reliable, with 164K and counting, not sorry i bought it.
the 4.3 is a very reliable gutsy engine(for a v6), the bad news is that it burns more gas than a typical 350. never really understood that. remove 2 cylinders and get not better mileage, but quite possibly worse mileage. it certainlly gets worse mileage than the typical 305. never really understood why, but from a MPG standpoint, its a pig
the 4.3 is a very reliable gutsy engine(for a v6), the bad news is that it burns more gas than a typical 350. never really understood that. remove 2 cylinders and get not better mileage, but quite possibly worse mileage. it certainlly gets worse mileage than the typical 305. never really understood why, but from a MPG standpoint, its a pig
10-24-2010, 06:09 PM
#44
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Why is that? The "lets cheap out and cut corners while the competition moves on with better technology" has never once worked in GMs favor in the past, why now?
10-24-2010, 07:16 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Supposedly there will be another generation of V6s in the next few years. I would expect one of those to be the base engine in the trucks -- maybe even a turbo 4 tuned for low end torque?