Muck,
Those are just campaigns. And few of the twins suffer these problems.
I'm a moderator on that board and believe me when I say there are MANY more satisfied 355 owners than dissatisfied.

I've also seen some satisfaction results on different websites and the twins do quite well, thank you.


With all that said, my '04 Colorado ZQ8 has been a gem so far. Good power, AWESOME mileage (21-22 mixed, 26-27 highway), excellent room, handles unbelievably great (must be the lack of weight), comfortable, great build quality, etc. And not one problem wih it. Mine's a regular cab, I5/M5, with 3.42s.

 

Not really, when the Colorado/Canyon has a combine sales of 126,095

I like the styling of these trucks, I drove a 2WD Colorado Sport the only complaints I had were, I thought the interior was a little barren, and I thought the I5 was a little short on power.

I wonder why they didn't develop a revamped 4.3 based off of the LS series V8s A 4.3 V6 with LS1 tech should have been good for 260-280 hp I would think.

 

[nerd] Saw this explained on TV once. Apparently the run is in an area full of black holes. IE space and time are warped. If one gets closer to a black hole without going in then the distance is cut down as is the space. So if he made it in a shorter distance than another ship it obviously took him less time.[/nerd]

 

Considering all other things I'd say the Taco is uncomfortably close to the combined sales of those two - as in close enough that it's giving the design team for the next-gen Colorado/Canyon nightmares.

 

Sounds like fun. I've been wanting to drive a ZQ8. Maybe they'll have one at the next ASIM.

 

Why would he be bragging that he ran under 12 parsecs then? Usually when you want to sound like you have gone farther, you would say something like over 11 parsecs, not under 12.

*Edit* Wow, I just realized this is pretty freakin off topic, as a GMT355 or any other vehicle for that matter we have here on Earth is not going to ever go even a fraction of a parsec. Oh well, it is really late here.

 

V8s do not make good V6s. Years ago carmakers did it for cost reasons, but in today's world of higher buyer expectations it really doesn't cut it.

 

Dammit. You just blew my whole theory out of the water.

 

Huh? That 4.3L V-6 is bullet proof! A relative bought a new 1990 TBI 4.3L S10 and put 250K miles on it with basic maintenance. Sold it several years ago and it is still doing commuter work. What is there not to like?
A previous suggestion to take the updated technology of the LS based engines and make a V-6 derivative might be quite interesting. If it were to make 250 hp or so, it would also very likely have loads of low end torque. A quality that the Atlas in-line engine family is sorely lacking.
Other folks can keep their sewing machine Toyohonissan buzz motors. Make mine a torque laden V-6 based on a small block. With the right N&V and balance development, a V-6 LS based motor might be a nice upgrade. For that matter the Buick 3.8L Series III might not be a bad choice either. Install a turbo, ala G-body GNX and you have an interesting package. That having been said, at this point I guess the V-6 discussion is academic.
Slightly off topic, but...The smart move might have been to design the vehicle to accept the LS V-8 engine family up front, as well as the I-4 and I-5. That would have saved a boat load of rework cash required to do it after the fact. Now before replies start searing the air, I know all about the V-8 show vehicles that have been trotted out. They certainly indicate the tremendous potential of the concept. (Who would not love a hi-po 4.8L/5.3L Colorado? Toss in cylinder deactivation and the 6-speed automatic for increased fuel economy. Count me in!) Unfortunately those are concepts and not production level vehicles. And there is a world of difference. Hopefully the current economic situation at GM won't kill any V-8 proposals that might be brewing. I'll keep my fingers crossed...

 

well we would like to sell more of them, but I dont think we are a very big colorodo dealership...

But I wouldnt consider them to be cheap, when they range in price about 17k-27k I think 17 is base, not certain...
but maybe the competition is so much more

 

I thought I read here that a 6 cyl would not fit in these trucks. Didn't Isuzu develop most of the suspension, frame of these trucks?

 

The inline 6 in the Trailblazer doesnt fit; its too long. A V8 fits so a V6 would be no problem.

 

The issue is refinement. The 4.3 might as well have a Massey-Ferguson emblem stamped on its valve covers.

There's two main problems with making a V6 out of a V8. First is the 90º bank angle, which is optimal for 8 cylinder engine but causes imbalances with only 6 cylinders. A balance shaft can cancel out some of the imbalance but not all of it. And it robs power to spin a balance shaft. Plus a 90º engine is tougher to package.

The second problem is that in order to get even firing on a 90º V6 (and you definitely want even firing) you have to split the crankpins. A V8 block has evenly spaced bore centres, so when you split the crankpin you suddenly have the piston off-centre with respect to the crank throw. This also adds imbalance and can add a lot of wear to the cylinder as well.

Like I said, making a V6 from a V8 was okay years ago when people's expectations weren't so high. Today, people won't accept the tradeoffs.

 

I agree.

The 4.3 engines are bulletproof, but they are not without their problems.

We have one that has over 330k never had the heads pulled (M5 rebuilt at 300k free by GM because they wanted to go through one that had that many miles on it, LOL)

The engine cannot rev at all. Torque is the only thing is has going for it.

You can also notice the lower speed vibrations in the "unbalanced" engine and that can be annoying.

The only thing special about the LS series of engines is the factory intake/head flow/head angle/combustion chamber design. This is nothing that they cannot design into a V6 (and they probably already have).

 

i'd love to see that happen