Jason E

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.

R377

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.

Z28x

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)

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.

96_Camaro_B4C

Exactly.

rlchv70

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.

96_Camaro_B4C

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

formula79

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.

Z28x

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

formula79

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.

jg95z28

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.

HAZ-Matt

I think the 4.3L only gets an old 4 speed auto to go with it.

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.

routesixtysixer

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).

guionM

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.

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.