4.6l v8

[jmore1276]

Anyone? I heard one person besides me mention it.

[91z4me]

They most likely mean the 4.8 L V8. Ford uses 4.6 motors but GM's smallest pushrod V8 is 4.8 L. There is NO way that GM would use the 4.6 Northstar in the GMT900s.

[CSpec]

I think evok mentioned a while ago that they were going to use a 4.6L version of the old 4.3 V6, but I'm not sure.

[Cremazie]

Just as long as they don't use the 4.3 in the new trucks. It's rough and crude. If they put that engine in the truck it'll be bad news!

[evok]

I think evok mentioned a while ago that they were going to use a 4.6L version of the old 4.3 V6, but I'm not sure.

[post="39789"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The V6 is the base engine.

[76ChevyTrucker]

I wouldn't say that the 4.3L 262cid V-6 is a crude engine, you have to remember what the engine essentially is....a 5.7L 350cid V-8 with a few parts missing, and I don't hear many people calling them crude.

[PONTIACGXP]

Zeta General Motors News PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1 Zeta General Motors News PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1 Zeta General Motors News PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1 Zeta General Motors News PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1 Zeta General Motors News PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1 Zeta General Motors News PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1 Zeta General Motors News PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1 Zeta General Motors News PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1

[prototype66]

Zeta  General Motors News  PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1
    Zeta  General Motors News  PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1

Zeta  General Motors News  PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1
    Zeta  General Motors News  PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1

Zeta  General Motors News  PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1
    Zeta  General Motors News  PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1

Zeta  General Motors News  PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1
    Zeta  General Motors News  PONTIACGXP--------------------Post #1

[post="40107"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

? :huh: ?

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

WHY? Why are they still using a V-6 engine as standard? First of all, they just seem weak and powerless to me. Second, the fuel economy ratings are hardly better than say, the 4800 V-8 most likely. And third, what's the point?

[evok]

WHY? Why are they still using a V-6 engine as standard? First of all, they just seem weak and powerless to me. Second, the fuel economy ratings are hardly better than say, the 4800 V-8 most likely. And third, what's the point?

[post="40261"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Perception that a V6 is more fuel efficient than the V8. That is the reason. And I was told the product mix for the V6 is small. But that was before Katrina.

[jmore1276]

I was figuering a chopped 6.0. The 4.3 is old tech. It's on it's way out. Or maybe the 3800 bored and stroked since that has been updated lately and is a 90 degree engine. Not a NorthStar, too expensive and I believe they already had a V6 version (ShortStar) that didn't last very long.

[ehaase]

The V6 will be just fine for a simple work truck used on a commercial site. There still is a small market for that type of vehicle.

[Brandon Lutz]

I've got the 4.3 in my 03 S-10 and its a great engine. Nothing crude about it IMHO. Its got good torque, and decent HP to move me if I need it to. I'd rather have a 4.3 V6 in a truck any day over any Inline 5 or 6 soley based on torque alone. Or I'd rather have a pushrod V6 period in a truck with decent power and good torque I want my pulling power down low. I dont want to have to rev the piss outta an engine just to get some decent pulling. With that being said, I'd rather have a V8 above them all :D Edited November 11, 2005 by Brandon Lutz

[CSpec]

WHY? Why are they still using a V-6 engine as standard? First of all, they just seem weak and powerless to me. Second, the fuel economy ratings are hardly better than say, the 4800 V-8 most likely. And third, what's the point?

[post="40261"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No one will buy a V6 Silverado anyway. I think they should offer it just to advertise a lower base price.

[hyperv6]

I thought I heard the I5 and I6 as being base engines in the new trucks. Never saw anything offical. I would have no problem with a I6 but the I 5 would be weak.

[Carguy]

I was figuering a chopped 6.0. The 4.3 is old tech. It's on it's way out. Or maybe the 3800 bored and stroked since that has been updated lately and is a 90 degree engine. Not a NorthStar, too expensive and I believe they already had a V6 version (ShortStar) that didn't last very long.

[post="40267"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

A chopped 6.0L 364CI V8 would make a 4.5L 273CI V6 witch would be PERFECT if they drop the 4.8L V8 from the BIG PICKUPS. That is what they should do. Use the 4.8L V8 as an opt. in the smaller p/u's and do the chopped 6.0L as a 4.5L V6 as the base Engine in the BIG p/u's.------((PERFECT!!)) :)

[brewman]

The 4.3 V6 may be old but proven tech but with a 91 Jimmy at 293,000 miles, I won't say a bad thing about it. I was sorry to see it go from the midsize SUV. Time will tell if the newer engines will last that long.

[jmore1276]

Anyone? I heard one person besides me mention it.

[post="39744"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Sorry I meant 4.6l V6...not V8

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

The 4.3 V6 may be old but proven tech but with a 91 Jimmy at 293,000 miles, I won't say a bad thing about it. I was sorry to see it go from the midsize SUV.
Time will tell if the newer engines will last that long.

[post="42006"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ooo a 4.3... highroller..

2.8L works just great for me! B)

[Brandon Lutz]

Ooo a 4.3... highroller..

2.8L works just great for me!  B)

[post="42810"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

My old 91 S-10 that I sold back in 02 had a 2.8 in it and it ran like a dream! 265,000 + on it when I sold it. Saw it the other day running around town and its still lookin strong B) Edited November 14, 2005 by Brandon Lutz

[CARBIZ]

Remember that Mercruiser has used the 4.3 as their six cylinder inboard/outboard for a very long time. When you are in the middle of Georgian Bay, you don't want some newfangled dual overhead cam, 15 valve per cylinder engine to crap out!

[jmore1276]

Remember that Mercruiser has used the 4.3 as their six cylinder inboard/outboard for a very long time.  When you are in the middle of Georgian Bay, you don't want some newfangled dual overhead cam, 15 valve per cylinder engine to crap out!

[post="42917"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Indeed..In fact..the last few years we built the 4.3 at Tonawanda Engine...we used the Roller style timing chain from the marine engines on all 4.3's. It will not streach or break as easy as the standard timing chain on the trucks. If you bought one of the 4.3's built since 2000 you will prabably never have to replace the timing chain.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

My old 91 S-10 that I sold back in 02 had a 2.8 in it and it ran like a dream! 265,000 + on it when I sold it. Saw it the other day running around town and its still lookin strong B)

[post="42911"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ooohh a fuel injected 2.8L...

high roller... :P

[Robert Hall]

Ooohh a fuel injected 2.8L...

high roller...  :P

[post="43404"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

My brother got 15 years and 185k out of his '84 S-10..it had the 4 cyl (2.5L?). No A/C, no power options, no carpeting!

[Carguy]

My brother got 15 years and 185k out of his '84 S-10..it had the 4 cyl (2.5L?). No A/C,  no power options, no carpeting!

[post="43945"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

AKA a real truck? :P :)

[Robert Hall]

AKA a real truck? :P  :)

[post="43950"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, it was really stripped down..a base 2wd shortbed model. But he tricked it out in in the tacky '80s style---big CHEVY decal across the windshield, tinted headlight covers, running boards, custom stripes, bed cover, rear window louvers, sun visor, custom wheels, key hole surround trim, CB radio,fog lights, front air dam, fake hood scoop, etc...

[arthur1957]

I have had three 4.3 V-6’s with no issues that would not have happened with a V-8. I put 60K on the first one, and traded just because I wanted a new van. Put 111K on the ’94 Safari. Have 95K on a ’96 Sierra ½ Ton, 2WD extended cab. Uses no oil, no problems. I think it is a fine engine. I agree that the mileage is not much better than a small V-8, though.