GM v-6
Thread Starter
|
Fleet Owner
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 26,007
Likes: 575
From: Brentwood,CA
GM v-6
I was reading in i think it was motor trend and they were comparing the entry level v-6 engines available in the 1/2 ton pickups and gm's engine looks like it is from the 80's it still has a coil and a distributer and solid cast iron intake what gives shouldn't they have gone to a better system or engine the only cool thing about it was it had a cast aluminum oil pan with cooling fins all over it but it still had the spark plugs right next to the exhaust ports comparded to ford the ford was very modern looking it had multiport fuelinjection aluminum heads and no distributer
Post Fiend
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,728
Likes: 1
From: Damascus-Boring, Ore
What do you mean, it looks like it's from the 80's. It is from the 80's! It also works, and has been reliable and durable as the hills.
GM 4.3 V6: 195 HP, 260 ft/lbs torque. EPA 16 city/22 hwy
Ford 4.2 V6: 202 HP, 260 ft/lb torque, EPA 15 city, 20 hwy
GM 4.3 V6: 195 HP, 260 ft/lbs torque. EPA 16 city/22 hwy
Ford 4.2 V6: 202 HP, 260 ft/lb torque, EPA 15 city, 20 hwy
Post Fiend
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,228
Likes: 5
From: Running Springs CA
Cast iron intake? Are you sure. My 1994 Vortec 4.3 V-6 had an aluminum intake. That engine was a cheap and reliable choice for an entry-level pickup. It is basically 3/4 of a 350 smallblock V-8. Later GM V-6's have had coolant leak issues with the intakes, but I think Dexcool is to blame.
The Ford engine is not exactly state-of-the-art, a stroked version of the 3.8 Essex V-6 (aka head gasket blower) which has Windsor V-8 origins.
Dodge used to have its 3.9, which was a cut-down 318 (5.2). I'm not familiar with what they use today.
Jim
The Ford engine is not exactly state-of-the-art, a stroked version of the 3.8 Essex V-6 (aka head gasket blower) which has Windsor V-8 origins.
Dodge used to have its 3.9, which was a cut-down 318 (5.2). I'm not familiar with what they use today.
Jim
Postmaster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,511
Likes: 0
From: Marion, VA
As was said, the GM 4.3 is a Chevy 350 with 2 cylinders removed. Most of the exterior parts (water pump, etc) are the same as a 350. They have proven to be very dependable. The only problem was intake gaskets going bad and leaking antifreeze into the oil and causing bearing failure. If anybody can make a pushrod engine, it is GM. GM's 3800 that they use in their cars is a better engine with more horspower and I don't know why they don't use it. They even supercharge it without bad results. It's roots go back to the 60s and the small block Chevy engine's roots go back to 55.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 1
From: Alvin, Texas.
Dodge uses that OHC 3.7L for its base engine.
Okay, we are all smart and know the old Durango had no v6 option. Soooo, why put a smaller v6 into a BIGGER pig that is the Durango now?
As for that 3.8L, bad idea for a truck as mentioned. Even the supercharger won't get me thinking that engine could outpull a small trailer.
GM is allegedly going to the 3.5L I5 (seen at putc.com) as the base Silvy engine in a couple o' years. No, that I6 with the oilpan made to slam a front differential through it will not fit in anything other than the TrailBlazer clones (It was made that way, okay?) and all 16,000 brand rebadges that thing will wear. GMC, Chevy, Buick Rainer, Isuzu, Saturn should have one, Saab has it in the 9-7....Pontiac, Opel, and Olds (yeah, they're dead, but hang with me) need to have their rebadge ready for cryin' out loud! Hell, Mazda needs to slam a TrailBlazer clone into it's lineup. The new Navajo. :Gong beat in background:
Okay, we are all smart and know the old Durango had no v6 option. Soooo, why put a smaller v6 into a BIGGER pig that is the Durango now?
As for that 3.8L, bad idea for a truck as mentioned. Even the supercharger won't get me thinking that engine could outpull a small trailer.
GM is allegedly going to the 3.5L I5 (seen at putc.com) as the base Silvy engine in a couple o' years. No, that I6 with the oilpan made to slam a front differential through it will not fit in anything other than the TrailBlazer clones (It was made that way, okay?) and all 16,000 brand rebadges that thing will wear. GMC, Chevy, Buick Rainer, Isuzu, Saturn should have one, Saab has it in the 9-7....Pontiac, Opel, and Olds (yeah, they're dead, but hang with me) need to have their rebadge ready for cryin' out loud! Hell, Mazda needs to slam a TrailBlazer clone into it's lineup. The new Navajo. :Gong beat in background:
Trending Topics
Posting Guru
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,155
Likes: 3
From: Centerville, Iowa
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
The 4.3 is a nice motor. Hell, about as powerful on paper as my 302. though mine's got about 30HP and 40TQ on it.
The 4.3 is a nice motor. Hell, about as powerful on paper as my 302. though mine's got about 30HP and 40TQ on it.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
Junior User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
It's too bad they didn't carry the 4.3 over for the Colorado instead of the I-5. As far as putting that in the market with the Ford and Japanese 4.0L V-6 trucks, well, thats like taking a knife to a gunfight.
I think once the newness of the Colorado wears off, you'll see Rangers and Tacomas at the front again.
I think once the newness of the Colorado wears off, you'll see Rangers and Tacomas at the front again.
Post Fiend
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,728
Likes: 1
From: Damascus-Boring, Ore
osbornk is closer to the mark than you think. If Buick could've gotten production of the 3800 to the needed levels without building a new plant, it would've happened. Remember torque is just a cam and an intake away. 
Since they couldn't, and there was a need to produce another V6 in an existing plant...with existing tooling...the 4.3 was born. Kind of reverse engineering, if you think about it.
The Colorado I-5 is an interesting unit. Why not 6, we asked? Because we need the EPA ratings to offset the bigger trucks, they answered. The good news is the powerplant is reasonably smooth, can motivate decently within limits, and actually fits the character of the truck very well. The Colorado follows Toyotas tried and proven formula to a tee- no major virtues, but no major vices either. The bad news is it's actually a step backwards from the 4.3 in terms of actual pulling power.
Since they couldn't, and there was a need to produce another V6 in an existing plant...with existing tooling...the 4.3 was born. Kind of reverse engineering, if you think about it.The Colorado I-5 is an interesting unit. Why not 6, we asked? Because we need the EPA ratings to offset the bigger trucks, they answered. The good news is the powerplant is reasonably smooth, can motivate decently within limits, and actually fits the character of the truck very well. The Colorado follows Toyotas tried and proven formula to a tee- no major virtues, but no major vices either. The bad news is it's actually a step backwards from the 4.3 in terms of actual pulling power.
Postmaster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,511
Likes: 0
From: Marion, VA
Originally Posted by polarbear
The Colorado I-5 is an interesting unit. Why not 6, we asked? Because we need the EPA ratings to offset the bigger trucks, they answered. The good news is the powerplant is reasonably smooth, can motivate decently within limits, and actually fits the character of the truck very well. The Colorado follows Toyotas tried and proven formula to a tee- no major virtues, but no major vices either. The bad news is it's actually a step backwards from the 4.3 in terms of actual pulling power.
Besides going to a less powerful engine with the Colorado, I was disappointed that the tow rating was dropped from 5,000 lbs. to 4,000 lbs. That alone dropped it from my list when I bought a new truck last year because I normally tow around 4,500 lbs when I tow my camper (it was delivered from the factory to the dealer with an S-10).
Last edited by osbornk; May 25, 2005 at 08:27 AM.
Post Fiend
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,728
Likes: 1
From: Damascus-Boring, Ore
Here's an interesting side note on the Colorado- from the same engineer. A 5.3 will fit nicely underneath the hood. Things that make you go hmmm (think they were hedging their bets?).
Personally, I'm surprised the Colorado sells as well as it does (they aren't cheap)- but it hit the market precisely at a time when gas mileage meant more than pulling power- something that impacts the compact truck market more than the full-size market. The hot combo out here is a Z71 2WD (like a Toyota Pre-Runner).
Personally, I'm surprised the Colorado sells as well as it does (they aren't cheap)- but it hit the market precisely at a time when gas mileage meant more than pulling power- something that impacts the compact truck market more than the full-size market. The hot combo out here is a Z71 2WD (like a Toyota Pre-Runner).
Last edited by polarbear; May 25, 2005 at 09:04 AM.
Lead Driver
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,746
Likes: 7
From: Tampa Bay, FL USA
Originally Posted by polarbear
...Personally, I'm surprised the Colorado sells as well as it does...The hot combo out here is a Z71 2WD (like a Toyota Pre-Runner).
Out of a total SUV inventory of approx. 100 vehicles, I think we have 3 FWD Escapes. Everything else on the ground: FOUR BY FOUR!!
Post Fiend
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,228
Likes: 5
From: Running Springs CA
4x4 wannabees make perfect marketing sense in the sunbelt. Kids get the "look" without the expense of higher purchase price, insurance and lower gas mileage. Think of markets like LA, Dallas and Miami. The problem I have is that for the few of us that actually need it, very few 4x4's are stocked by SoCal dealers. Too many of them are luxury loaded SUV's for the soccer moms.
Back on topic, the 4.3 is now "orphaned" because the 5.7 V-8 is now out of production. The same could be said for the Ford 4.2, now that the Mustang uses a different engine. Has anyone heard if ford has an OHC 6 planned for future F-150's?
Jim
Back on topic, the 4.3 is now "orphaned" because the 5.7 V-8 is now out of production. The same could be said for the Ford 4.2, now that the Mustang uses a different engine. Has anyone heard if ford has an OHC 6 planned for future F-150's?
Jim
