Jump to content

4.3L "Baby LT1" V8


Recommended Posts

I think ya'll are missing ,that GM shaved two cylinders off of an LT1 V8 and made a bonzi 4.3L LT1 V6.Guess who used it......GMC in the CYCLONE and another model.Both models were AWD.They were turboed and well over 400hp with scads of torque.

 

 

No. They were not well over 400HP.

 

And the 4.3L was not based off the LT1. The 4.3L V-6 came out in 1985. The same year as the L98

 

There was no LT1 in 1985 to base the 4.3L Vortec off of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

94, 95 and 96 Caprice ONLY. Go to Rockauto.com and look them up, they are there. They are an L99 and they are NOT the same as the MONZA engine. The MONZA had a different bore and stroke. The L99 has a

A lot of good facts here and with all the low 3 liter V6s and 4.3s in both V6 and V8 form, it's easy to get them confused and/or forget them. I had forgotten.  There was a 3.3 V6 in the downsized

The Syclone was rated at 280HP 350 pounds of torque.    The Typhoon was 280hp 360 pounds of torque.   Yet with aftermarket parts they could go over 800hp.

 

I think ya'll are missing ,that GM shaved two cylinders off of an LT1 V8 and made a bonzi 4.3L LT1 V6.Guess who used it......GMC in the CYCLONE and another model.Both models were AWD.They were turboed and well over 400hp with scads of torque.

 

 

No. They were not well over 400HP.

 

And the 4.3L was not based off the LT1. The 4.3L V-6 came out in 1985. The same year as the L98

 

There was no LT1 in 1985 to base the 4.3L Vortec off of.

 

The Syclone was rated at 280HP 350 pounds of torque. 

 

The Typhoon was 280hp 360 pounds of torque.

 

Yet with aftermarket parts they could go over 800hp.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Guest Travis

I own a 94 caprice classic the 4.3 v8 is very real that's what came in mine factory very reliable motors...and actually have some power for bein so small displacement and a heavy car...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Travis

I run the 4.3 in my 1994 caprice classic sleeper with a mild cam valve springs and stall along with 4.11 rear gears and a custom ecm tune it leaves mustangs at the line wondering how a 4100 pound boat just smoked them. Prefur the torque curve of the 4.3 over the 5.7 it seems too pull threw the high side of gears better

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Travisk1987@gmail.com

OK....so I'm flipping through some old C&D rags and in the 10-93 issue, highlighting the "1994 New Cars" there was an article in the Technical Highlights section talking about GM's new "baby" LT1 variant....a 4.3L version that would be the base Caprice Classic engine along with the optional 5.7L LT1....

Does anyone remember this engine? I don't even remember it existing.....and surprised we didn't see it in other applications (might it have fit tranversly in a GM-10 of the time??)

Here's how the two engines compared:

4.3L, SFI V8 (5.7L SFI V8)

200 hp (260 hp)

245 lb/ft torque (335 lb/ft torque)

Let me know if you know anything about it...!

i actually have a 1995 caprice classic, and yes it has a 4.3 v8 also knows as "the baby ls1"
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

OK....so I'm flipping through some old C&D rags and in the 10-93 issue, highlighting the "1994 New Cars" there was an article in the Technical Highlights section talking about GM's new "baby" LT1 variant....a 4.3L version that would be the base Caprice Classic engine along with the optional 5.7L LT1....

Does anyone remember this engine? I don't even remember it existing.....and surprised we didn't see it in other applications (might it have fit tranversly in a GM-10 of the time??)

Here's how the two engines compared:

4.3L, SFI V8 (5.7L SFI V8)

200 hp (260 hp)

245 lb/ft torque (335 lb/ft torque)

Let me know if you know anything about it...!

i actually have a 1995 caprice classic, and yes it has a 4.3 v8 also knows as "the baby ls1"

 

Yup the family had a couple of these, all retired and long gone but was a solid baby V8

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I on one i drive everyday it a good car they also put that motor in fire birds and cameos has good torque and good top end speed

 love my caprice its a 1994 model

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I on one i drive everyday it a good car they also put that motor in fire birds and cameos has good torque and good top end speed

 love my caprice its a 1994 model

 

 

The 4.3L L99 was never available in a Camaro or Firebird 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Guest carguy

It was produced. A friend of mine had one and it was very smooth but not very powerful yet a far better engine then the previous 305CI 5.0L V8 in the Caprice. Like the first SB V8 it was 4.3L's and 265CI!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Christopher Taylor

Is this LT1 being used today? And in which models?

No. This is based on the original reverse flow cooling SB Chevrolet V8. Todays SB V8 is very different. They reuse names every 25 or so years for the performance versions of the SB V8.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

It's funny that this thread recently woke up again.

A B-O-P service adviser told me about this engine.  It was in a Chevy they sold on their used car lot and they then had to service it.  He couldn't believe it either.

At any rate, I then became interested in these 4.3 units, seeing how much I liked the Olds spin on their V8 (theirs was a debored Rocket 350 back in the day).  That one was known for its quiet operation and longevity.  So, I found a few on used Caprices of '94 to '96 vintage on used car lots with this engine.  Upon turning the key, this engine has a beautiful purr (nicer than any 5.0 or 5.7 I can remember) but I didn't want to drive it because I knew I wouldn't be buying it.  With a serpentine belt and electric fan(s), this thing set up as RWD is a mechanic's dream.  

I've even talked to a few owners.  They love their Caprices of these years.  One was a Kentuckian who had taken it down to Florida for vacation.  It had about 300,000 original miles on it and he told me he can break past 25 mpg on the open road.

I don't think I'll ever do the second car thing again.  However, if I did, this would be it.  I've looked at EBay and other sites.  It's hard to find one in a nice color, in good shape, with cloth seats (leather has all these cracks after all this time), and reasonable mileage.

I know that their 80's 4.4 displaced 267 cubes.  I think cubic inches had fallen out of favor by the time this engine rolled around.  It would be interesting to know how many c.i.s it displaced.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More info:  L 99 - displaced 263 c.i. - born of the Chevy 5.0 L / 305 c.i. - no change in bore but change in stroke - 200 h.p., even, and very good torque - over 25 mpg on highway EPA rating - only produced for 3 years and for the sedan (not the wagon), so not an omnipresent engine in the Chevrolet stable.  Very interesting, at least to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

94, 95 and 96 Caprice ONLY. Go to Rockauto.com and look them up, they are there. They are an L99 and they are NOT the same as the MONZA engine. The MONZA had a different bore and stroke. The L99 has a 3 inch stroke, same as the 283 and chevy 302. As a matter of fact, you can take the crank and put it in a 350 block and you'll have a true chevy 302 just like in 1969 except it will have the one piece rear main seal. Just make sure you use the L99 connecting rods with whatever 350 pistons you want. That's all Chevrolet did, they put a 283 crank in a 4 inch bore block and made a 302. A Ford 302 is the same bore and stroke as well. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 1/1/2018 at 5:27 AM, liketowin77 said:

94, 95 and 96 Caprice ONLY. Go to Rockauto.com and look them up, they are there. They are an L99 and they are NOT the same as the MONZA engine. The MONZA had a different bore and stroke.

Every once in a while, I go onto eBay or craigslist and look for these Caprices ... in base form and with the 4.3 liter V8.  If you think they come by cheaply, they don't.  Far from it.  What you'll see is one that is in dire straits and on its last legs sitting in a corn field in a small town in southern Illinois where there are fewer teeth in the town than there are cubic inches in the engine, and they're asking $795 or less, and it has been sitting there for a long time, looking like the Andrea Doria accumulating plankton.  Then, you'll see one in immaculate condition with 60,000 miles and they want anywhere from $5,500 to $7,000.

Within the past 4 months, I was at a light next to one.  I rolled down the window and so did the passenger.  It was burgundy, had whitewalls, factory spoke wheels, and a burgundy leather interior.  The husband beamed that it had less than 45,000 miles.  I asked which engine it had.  The wife, the passenger, looked at her husband and he said it had a V8.   I knew that.  The light changed, so I couldn't ask more questions nor ask if he'd sell it.  I'm betting it had the 5.7 liter V8.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
On 1/7/2016 at 5:26 PM, FordCosworth said:

 

 

No. They were not well over 400HP.

 

And the 4.3L was not based off the LT1. The 4.3L V-6 came out in 1985. The same year as the L98

 

There was no LT1 in 1985 to base the 4.3L Vortec off of.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1978
 
The 4.3L Chevy V6 is among the strongest of production V6's ever produced, especially in its later versions. It was first produced in 1978 and that design stemmed from the 1955 Chevy Small Block V8.
 

The Novak Guide to the Chevrolet Small Block V6 Engine

Had Several ofn these cars, during my quest for one of them, I came across a 1994 (this was in 2006) former NYC police car, former NYC taxi, 557,000 miles. With regular maintenance, these were tough cars.

 
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the 4.3L V6 debuting in 1985, but Chevrolet first V6 based on the small block V8 was a 200 cubic inch version that debuted in the downsized 1978 Malibu.  It was upsized to 3.8L in 1980  229 cubic inches (full size cars still had the 250 inline six as standard for 1977 through 1979), which was standard in the full size models and then upsized again in 1985 to 4.3L.  I remember having driver's training in a late 70's Malibu with the 3.3.  It could barely go up a hill. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2020 at 1:43 PM, ehaase said:

I remember the 4.3L V6 debuting in 1985, but Chevrolet first V6 based on the small block V8 was a 200 cubic inch version that debuted in the downsized 1978 Malibu.  It was upsized to 3.8L in 1980  229 cubic inches (full size cars still had the 250 inline six as standard for 1977 through 1979), which was standard in the full size models and then upsized again in 1985 to 4.3L.  I remember having driver's training in a late 70's Malibu with the 3.3.  It could barely go up a hill. 

A lot of good facts here and with all the low 3 liter V6s and 4.3s in both V6 and V8 form, it's easy to get them confused and/or forget them.

I had forgotten.  There was a 3.3 V6 in the downsized Malibu because, that same year, they put out a 3.2 V6 (196 c.i.) for equivalent Buick products, such as the Regal and the Century.  I knew someone who had this engine in a hand-me down in a 2-door Regal, and he said it was reliable, economical, but had no oomph.

It was great that Chevy's downsized full-sizes kept the inline 6 because the engine bay had room for it.  I believe 231s were available in the BOP full-size base cars.  I think, in that era, I'd opt for the inline 6 over the 231.

I don't know what the 4.4 V8 was based on, which was also found in Malibus and Monte Carlos.

4.3s by Chevrolet can be confusing, since they made them as V6s and V8s.  Both were excellent engines. 

The 4.3 V6 (Vortec) was sliced off from a Chevy 350.  Who'd have thought that this engine was a slam dunk for 300,000 miles?  A few Astro van drivers have told me that their 4.3s would not give up the ghost.  I think that, in that era, the 4.3 V6 (~ 262 c.i.) with simple TBI was better than the 231 c.i. V6, even if the 231 had gone even firing.  And, yes, it showed up in the 1985 MY model year.  I had the opportunity to drive a RWD Monte Carlo (bucket seats and console!) coupe with that engine in the NYC area and the extra ~ 30 hp (if I recall) came in handy for short ramps and getting out of the gate after paying a bridge toll.

The 4.3 V8 was a de-bored 5.0 (305 c.i.) V8.  It showed up for the 1994 MY in RWD form but only stuck around for a few years.  If in excellent condition, the purr that they make is music to the ears.  It also can go the distance ... just hope the Optispark ignition control doesn't give out, which can be costly.  For some reason, the smaller GM V8s have nice, quiet exhaust notes and I like quiet running cars.

Also, in the late '70s, Chevy had some batches of 305s and 350s that had premature camshaft wear problems.  I knew a few people who had problems with them.  That definitely skewed me towards Olds designed V8s.  However, with all of that behind them, I would gladly drive a car powered by the L99 engine (4.3 Chevy V8) that the thread discusses.

 

Edited by trinacriabob
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 11/27/2020 at 8:37 AM, A Horse With No Name said:

4.3 V6 is a running motor. 

Right. It lives on. An acquaintance has it in a basic Chevy truck. Like the last 5.7, it would be an all aluminum (block and heads) unit.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trinacriabob said:

Right. It lives on. An acquaintance has it in a basic Chevy truck. Like the last 5.7, it would be an all aluminum (block and heads) unit.

I thought all 4.3's were iron block....I could be wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I thought all 4.3's were iron block....I could be wrong. 

I looked up the stats on this 2017 and 2018 truck and it was aluminium. I, too, was surprised. If a mainstream car maker is making an all cast iron engine for a vehicle at a good price point, someone needs to let me know!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...