Brian S.

Tell that to the guy with the small 6 cylinder F150 that drives away from your 5.3l up the on ramp..... Ford has proven pretty conclusively small turbo engines can move trucks around and tow fine. This new 4 cylinder turbo is a interesting engine, the CD review said the peak torque comes on so low you'll never notice the lag. One thing I would note about these engines they mainly seem to benefit the manufacturers. Building half the engine, putting a compressor on it, and selling for the same or more than V8s. I've read a lot of F150 EcoBoost threads, and heard from owners, the mileage is not really much different than 5l in real world use. What I'd really like to see from GM is the 4.3l with a turbo. All that said, I recently traded in my 2017 5.3l SLE double cab for a Certified 2018 5.7l Ram Laramie Crew cab. Wasn't much money out of pocket as the Sierra was paid for, and I felt like trying something new after buying 6 Silverados/Sierras since 2005. Ram seems like a nice truck, and with the certified warranty I figured I couldn't go too far wrong. If it's as "reliable" as the 2000 Ram Laramie I had, I'll be back in a Silverado faster than you can say "GM". Those trucks were bullet proof for me.

You mean fake leather seats and heated steering wheels are NOT the primary concern of most country folk?!?! What the heck is wrong with those barbarians?!?! It's somewhat amazing to me to see pickup trucks discussed like mini vans as well: "You've GOT to have the 8" video screen with individual surround on the back of the headrests Trent! How will the children watch Youtube en route?!" My first concern has always been fitting my sporting gear.

Heh, I have a cabin on a slough and spend a lot of time in swamps fishin' and huntin', so I'm not exactly genteel myself. I do think there's something to the "manly men" don't drive 6 cylinder trucks perception, I grew up in the 70s and got a dose myself. Was a stretch for me to buy the 4.3l but it proved itself to me.

You could be right. When I had that 4.3 I made sure to be wearing my Levis Button Fly jeans, roll up my sleeves on my Duck Dynasty t-shirt, put a pack of Camel straights in the breast pocket, and wear a DeWalt cap. I wore some Dockers and a Polo once and got ambushed in the parking lot at Gander Mountain. As they were kicking me on the ground, I heard one of my assailants mutter, "This truck aint right! Don't sound like no truck! Its a dang UFO and this here's a ALIEN!"

What is always interesting to me in this debate is: If the hp/torque of the current 5.3 is necessary to have, why didn't most of us drive 6.2s in past generations? Most of us drove 4.8s and 5.3s, and the current 4.3 is around the same performance of those. So apparently that level of performance was A-OK in 2013 and before, but these days you need much more. Doesn't make sense to me.

I get that the new 5.3s have more power than the old 5.3s and as such differentiate themselves from the 4.3s. My point with 4.3s has always been that if you were satisfied with the old 4.8 or 5.3, you would likely be satisfied with the new 4.3 as it's very comparable. Personally I never thought, "I really wish this thing was faster!" or "I wish this thing could tow more!" with all the past GM, Ford, RAM full size trucks I had that had very similar hp/torque to the new 4.3l. If I had wanted or needed more power on those vehicles I would have just bought it.

This is a HUGE factor. Even if the new 4.3 had exactly (instead of 10% less on E10, and about same on E85) the same power as the old 5.3 most of us drove, most here would be saying, "You have to get a V8! The new one has more power ! There's that V8 sound!" What if you suddenly decide to buy a yacht, how will you pull it?!" On E85 the new 5.3 is within 5 ft lbs torque and 18 hp of the 5.3s we all drove. I've driven both and if anything the 4.3 on E85 felt faster and more powerful. Even on E10 it was hard to tell the difference because it made 90% of the last gen 5.3s power at the same RPMs. We've all been conditioned to think "There's no replacement for displacement" to which I say: 1. Teslas don't have displacement and are some of the fastest vehicles on the road. 2. The high pressure injected, high compression 4.3 makes more horsepower and torque than a lot of larger V8s we drove back in days gone by. 3. Ferd's Ecoboost is getting higher than V8 power out of tiny V6s. 4. Small diesels, turbo and non, are beating V8s as well. The saying needs to change to, "Technology trumps all".

I thought about it more and I'd go one further: I don't care who you are, saving even $500 a year matters. If you're a young father and sock that $500 a year into EdVest or similar when your son or daughter hits college you'll have saved a year of tuition and fees at a state school, minimum. Anybody who has ever helped a kid through college (or couldn't) can probably see the value of having an extra year of tuition laying around. A person has to look at the whole of their life, not just "Wowee, I can get that V8 sound for only a few bucks more a month!". Easy trades that don't have relevant function differences can make for much larger long term gains.

I didn't say "I" care much about saving money, obviously I'm not on a thrifty path through life. I'm just saying when faced with "There is NO reason to buy a 4.3l truck, including mpg" I have to disagree after buying one and using it a year. If you're a young couple or single guy around $1000 a year can be money you think about. I pay that for my internet/tv/home phone now, saving that cash is like getting that stuff free. (or close to it) I'm 50, I want my cars as quiet as possible now. I did the whole headers/cherry bombs on V8 muscle cars back in the day. These days I talk to friends and family on the Bluetooth and want to hear them, not the engine. When trucks go by me on the highway that sound like dump trucks I just look at the guy and think "Seriously? You find that preferable?". Would be like working with an impact wrench or chain saw, Sure, it needs to be done at times, but I don't shoot for racket like that whenever possible.

Now THAT is saving some money with the 4.3l! To get my 17.4mpg: 1. I had 3.42 gears, 4wd, Xcab. 2. I live a north of you in WI and had it in AWD a good 3 months of the year. 3. When water open towing 3000lb boat weekly, 4-5X a year 200mile+ trips 4. My daily commute was mix of stop and go city/short hop hwy, done twice a day. (ate lunch at home) 5. My dad tells me I have a heavy foot and stop too suddenly to get decent mileage or have tires last. So, my mpgs may only be valid for me, YMMV.

They cost less to buy, insure, drive and maintain. Those are their advantages. I drove a 4.3l for a year, mix of hwy/city, 4wd and not, towing frequently and averaged 17.4 mpg for the year. I've driven two years since with identically configured 5.3s and got 16mpg even both years. (I just drive, don't try for mpg) I drive about 20k miles per year, that would be 1149 gallons per year with the 4.3l, 1250 gallons with the 5.3. The national average price for gas today is $2.38, so that's $240/year saved on fuel, $1200 over the life of a 5 year loan. If a person can get the 4.3l $2500 cheaper due to less demand for 4.3s and $900 difference in retail cost we're up to $3700 savings over 5 year period. I think my insurance difference was around $100-$150 a year so tack another $500 on that. I don't know what maintenance differences are, only owned it a year and paid no maintenance. However; I truly believe a person can save $4000 easily with a 4.3l, and I bet a person willing to walk away from dealers can save even more. Whether $1000/year over five years means anything to you depends on the depth of your pockets. There's another concept in play here though: I honestly don't care about amounts of money like $1000 a year. Nonetheless, when the house we bought last summer only had cable jacks in the rec room and three season porch, we decided to "cut the cord" and try streaming Playstation Vue + HBO Now + Netflix for tv and use Ooma VOIP for our landline. Saves me $120 a month and the product delivered is comparable enough I don't care so we stuck with it. I look at the that $1000 a year I saved as my teenager's car insurance or$1000 I can blow on something else like a long weekend cabin rental.. That's kind of how I looked at the 4.3: It towed my 3000lb fishing boat easily, was about as fast as the 2010 5.3 I traded in for it. I've bought two 5.3s since because I like to drive fairly new cars and got good deals on them, but I definitely don't look down on the Ecotec3 4.3l. It's better than the old 4.8l V8 and close to the old 5.3L. No shame in that, and more disposable is always welcome. Towing capacity they don't need and 7/10 of a second quicker 0-60 might not be worth that $1000 a year to some people.

I don't think you can buy a half ton truck for mpg, maybe if they make one shaped like a Corvette someday. Have to move the weight, no aerodynamics. I got 17.4 overall the year I had a 4.3l, and 16 flat the last two years with 5.3s. Not a ton, but it adds up over a year.

Sorry! Didn't see the regular cab part. Yep you might.

Actually, I wonder if they run E85 in the flex fuel 5.3s. It would be a good sales tactic to compete with Ford and RAM. About 10% more hp and torque in the test drives and no one would suspect that. If I had a car lot, I'd be doing that.

No offense, but you should hope you don't find any 6.2s to race, even stock. 4.3s aren't going to beat 5.3s, and 5.3s won't beat 6.2s. The stock air filter is pretty high air flow already, but you might have a chance on 100% E85! http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f22/lingenfelter-tests-e85-through-new-silverado-119387/ I haven't tried E85 on my 5.3 as yet, but it was definitely noticeable in the 2014 4.3 I had. I wonder if the dealer had E85 in it on the lot when I test drove the 4.3 and that would make a lot of sense. I drove to the dealer in a 5.3l with 315hp/330ft lbs torque. I test drove a 4.3l that would have had 297hp and 330 ft lbs torque on E85, and would have been totally indiscernible from my 2010 5.3l. Would be a pretty crafty sales tactic for the dealer, so I'm inclined to think they would be smart enough to figure this out.

Given that we all drive on streets where speed is regulated, I'd say 0-60 is about all that matters on performance. 7.3 seconds for the 5.3 vs 8 seconds for the 4.3 (both on regular gas) would seem a pretty irrelevant difference to me.

This seems reasonable. Is there any reason to think only the 5.3 might be faster than the Car and Driver tests though? The 4.3 might also be faster as well, the ratio of power to weight is certainly the same.

Yep. Gearing, aerodynamics, tires all play into the 0-60 and quarter mile equation as well. There's another way to check if it's a "slug" as well: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-chevrolet-silverado-v-6-instrumented-test-review So on E85 the 4.3 is 4/10 of a second slower than the 5.3 on regular gas, and 7/10 slower on regular gas in the quarter mile. This is Car and Driver instrumented tests, I personally don't consider the differences between 15.3, 15.7, and 16 flat very significant. For example, the mighty Honda Accord V6 makes it down that quarter mile in 14.2 seconds, over a second faster than the 5.3 Silverado. http://www.motortrend.com/news/honda-accord-2017-car-of-the-year-contender/ Or a Subaru Forester with the good engine nails it in 15 seconds flat: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-subaru-forester-20xt-test-review

I don't have a 4.3l, I'm on my second 5.3l. I just jump into these threads because I had a 4.3l and for towing my ~3000lb fishing boat, and doing the outdoor sports related hauling I do, it worked great. I paid less in insurance, less for gas, and think I paid less for the truck because demand is soft on 4.3s. (I think I paid around $30K for a LT2 Z71 4wd Xcab and the list was $42 or $43). It drove and towed about the same as the 2010 5.3l I traded in on it. (and when I traded the 4.3 in they only knocked $1k off my negotiated trade in price off it when they pulled it up on the computer and found out is was a 4.3l) The 4.3s are far under rated on truck forums. Just because this gen of trucks came out with more hp/torque doesn't mean the hp/torque most of us had for decades doesn't work any longer.

You do know the 3.5 in the expedition is their larger size turbo charged engine that costs a lot more than the 4.3, right?

He's probably used to the old 4.8 and 5.3l small blocks and finds the new 4.3l pretty similar.

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/honda-0-60-mph-times/ That's what I'm talking about, 5/6 Honda Acoords faster than a 5.3l truck, and 3 of them much faster. If soccer moms in Accord sedans can lay rubber at the lights and drive away from your 5.3l truck I don't think a person has any business talking about 4,3l being "slugs". 4.3l and 5.3l trucks are pretty slow in the vehicle world, the .7 - 1 second faster (depending on source) I've seen doesn't make me think "Thank god I have a 5.3l! Might be able to dust that Camry next to me if they have the 4 cylinder!" At the end of the day if you're getting to 60 in 7.3 or 8.3 seconds you didn't buy the vehicle for speed.

I agree that we live in a "golden era" of car performance compared to the 60s and 70s. What I'm saying is all this "5.3l performance is the stuff! Makes the 4.3l look like a slug!" is kind of a moot point when 5.3l trucks are over 7 second 0-60 vehicles and plenty of grocery hauler sedans, cute utes, and mini vans that are in the 5s and 6s. (and some in the 4s) It's kind of like saying "My slug is a bit faster than your slug", and the 6.2l is the only 6 second 0-60 in the bunch. Trucks just aren't built for speed. And above all, if your 1999-2013 5.3l was fast enough for you, the 4.3l is as well. For the right price and tow needs <4000lbs, the 4.3l can be a good deal. Not if the only difference is the spec sheet cost of the 5.3 upgrade, but if you can get one $2-$3K cheaper due to less demand, makes sense to me.

http://www.autorooster.com/0-60-times/chevrolet/silverado/ The new 4.3l is slightly faster than the 1999-2006 5.3l, and slightly slower than the 2007-2012 5.3l. When I was driving those trucks I don't remember weeping and cursing GM, wishing they were faster. Reality is these things are pickup trucks, not race cars. The ONLY ones that could be called "quick" are the 6.2l models. If a person had one of the last couple generations of 5.3l the new 4.3l will seem very similar. I didn't really notice the difference driving one for a year after spending the prior 11 with a 2002, 2006, 2010 5.3l. (and I don't notice a lot of difference with the two current gen 5.3s I've had since then) New 4.3 is not a "slug" - numbers don't lie.

It does have the transmission cooler in the radiator. I wanted an external cooler because I'm old school and think a truck should have one. GM guys told me the new fluids have a higher tolerance of heat and not to worry about it, I still think it would be a good idea. The 5.3l I have now has an external cooler, the 6.2l does as well. Apparently they aren't obsolete for most of their trucks?