Impressions on the 4.3L V6

[greg74]

You won't need to explain anything by the time we sell these trucks. In 2016 the 8speed will be here making the v6 even more capable. In my opinion, this v6 when coupled to a 8speed is the future and will be the more popular engine when the cafe tightens up further. The old v6 is gone and so will that mentality. It will just take some time. When the 8speed comes don't be surprised the 6.2 is not available in the 1500. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Yeah, smaller, more efficient engines and 8 speed autos are probably the future but I hope they don't do away with powerful V8's entirely or at least make them a very expensive option because of some silly gas guzzler tax or something like that. Sometimes you simply want more power because its fun to have it, whether you need it or not and I don't like the government telling me that its bad for the environment or some crap like that because it doesn't meet some minimum fuel mileage number. I'm surprised that the 6.2 was ever offered in the 1500 in the first place but I'm sure most still opt for the 5.3 anyway.

[SY2455]

The 4.3 puts out 285hp and 305ft/lbs

My current truck (f150 w/4.6L) puts out 292 hp and 320ft/lbs.

The difference in performance between these motors isn't much, and i think the f150 weighs more.

I pull a 5000lb (about, loaded) utility trailer with my 150. It struggles a bit on big hills now that i put 33s on it, but can still hold highway speed.

 

This 4.3 motor would be a great choice if you are not going to tow more than 5000.

some math: it has 50% more power, and 22% more torque than the old s-10 4.3L

 

 

Well, I don't really agree with your math. My old 99% stock 4.3 puts out 5 less hp and 40 ft/lbs more then the new 4.3 and will spin the tires getting on the freeway or stoplight to stoplight with 98,000 miles on her just stepping on the gas.

Edited March 22, 2014 by SY2455

[iCryWheniGoPoop]

Well, I don't really agree with your math. My old 99% stock 4.3 puts out 5 less hp and 40 ft/lbs more then the new 4.3 and will spin the tires getting on the freeway or stoplight to stoplight with 98,000 miles on her just stepping on the gas.

I was thinking you had a couple typos for a second and then realized you edited it. So I read it 2 more times.....

 

 

What?

[SY2455]

I was thinking you had a couple typos for a second and then realized you edited it. So I read it 2 more times.....

 

 

What?

Until my 2014 CC 6.2 get built, due next week. My current truck that I play with is my GMC Syclone. Think of it a 5lbs bag loaded down with 20lbs as built by GM in 1991. GPS clocked my Syclone on dry pavement 0 to 60 mph at 3.9 sec. In the rain it will take 4.3 sec. You can find out more at http://www.syty.net

Edited March 23, 2014 by SY2455

[bdbake01]

I WILL have a Sy before I die.

[scphilli]

I drove a 2014 double cab 4.3 for a week while my new truck was waiting for a new starter. I was actually impressed. I have had three 4.3 motors in an S10, trail blazer, and WT 1500 but they were nothing nothing like the new motor. I think they tweaked the tune right with the 4.3 and the pedal actually didn't seem as dead as my 5,3 (both had the same rear axle ratio). Unless your towing or racing, I think the 4.3 would be just fine and average gas mileage was better despite the ratings

[PickUPS]

Have you driven the all new 4.3? Just making sure you are aware that this is nothing like the old 4.3. Only the displacement number and the fact that its an Ecotec3 V8 with two cylinders chopped off (like the old one was based on the 350) remains the same. This thing feels alot like a small V8, sure smaller than a 5.3 but still, like a small V8.

It is larger than 6/8ths of a 5.3 liter. I know the castings and tech are of the same family but the 4.3 V6 displacement is actually equal to a 5.7333 liter V8 with 2 cylinders deleted.

 

 

These larger bores of the V6 produce a larger effective displacement than the V8 in AFM (V4) mode.

 

2/3 (4 of 6 cylinders) X 4.3 liter engine = 2.8666 liters in V4 mode

 

1/2 (4 of 8 cylinders) X 5.3 liter engine = 2.65 liters

 

 

The 4.3 V6 actually has more displacement at work than the 5.3 in V4 mode. Plus, the 4.3 is pushing half as many deactivated cylinders while in V4 mode.

 

Im waiting on delivery of a 2014 Sierra V6 DC ordered in Feb. My 2004 Silverado has the 4.8 V8. I love the power and the sound of that small V8 but always felt like it was way more than I ever needed. I had to go to ridiculous lengths to get much over 20mpg out it.

 

It was still a tough call for me, choosing the V6. I didnt choose the V6 because it is cheaper or because the price of fuel is forcing me to. I can afford any truck that The General makes. I just dont want to pay for or live with the over-capacity that the 5.3 would be for me. I would have chosen an SLT with a V6 but it is not offered. They only put the V6 on the lower and mid trim levels. That means Sierra WT or SLE only.

 

There were no V6 trucks at dealers in a 500mi radius that had the fancy options I wanted. Dealer lots dont have any V6 SLEs with bucket-seats. And they definitely dont stock any 2WD V6 SLEs with Z71 pkg and 20 wheels + bucket seats + summit white.

 

Ive strayed pretty far from the original topic, just venting, frustrated with having to order to get a nicely decked out V6. My Double-Cab is sitting outside the Fort Wayne IN Assembly Plant right now, ready to deliver.

[iCryWheniGoPoop]

Until my 2014 CC 6.2 get built, due next week. My current truck that I play with is my GMC Syclone. Think of it a 5lbs bag loaded down with 20lbs as built by GM in 1991. GPS clocked my Syclone on dry pavement 0 to 60 mph at 3.9 sec. In the rain it will take 4.3 sec. You can find out more at http://www.syty.net

yes, I know what the Syclone and Typhoon are... I thought you were making an apples to apples comparison, didn't think you were reaching back 20+ years ago for a very rare boosted S10 just so you could say your old 4.3 would smoke the tires but forgot to mention it was in a 3600 lb truck, and if I recall, stock they did not make more HP, 20ish shy if my memory serves me correctly and that's With a turbo. That even says more about today's 4.3 specs, if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong... They are awesome vehicles but.... Not an apple.

[SY2455]

yes, I know what the Syclone and Typhoon are... I thought you were making an apples to apples comparison, didn't think you were reaching back 20+ years ago for a very rare boosted S10 just so you could say your old 4.3 would smoke the tires but forgot to mention it was in a 3600 lb truck, and if I recall, stock they did not make more HP, 20ish shy if my memory serves me correctly and that's With a turbo. That even says more about today's 4.3 specs, if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong... They are awesome vehicles but.... Not an apple.

The apple to apple comparison being the same 4.3 engine size. Hp was down by 5, the weight on my truck is 3750lbs. Please don't get me wrong I like the new 4.3. I only wish that GM had come out with this engine sooner, like in the year 2000. With the new 4.3 compression of 11 to 1, I don't think that I would put a turbo on it.

[fondupot]

The new 4.3L has some potential...wait til people start turboing or supercharging them...

Edited March 23, 2014 by fondupot

[Inacanyon]

It is larger than 6/8ths of a 5.3 liter. I know the castings and tech are of the same family but the 4.3 V6 displacement is actually equal to a 5.7333 liter V8 with 2 cylinders deleted.

 

 

These larger bores of the V6 produce a larger effective displacement than the V8 in AFM (V4) mode.

 

2/3 (4 of 6 cylinders) X 4.3 liter engine = 2.8666 liters in V4 mode

 

1/2 (4 of 8 cylinders) X 5.3 liter engine = 2.65 liters

 

 

The 4.3 V6 actually has more displacement at work than the 5.3 in V4 mode. Plus, the 4.3 is pushing half as many deactivated cylinders while in V4 mode.

 

Im waiting on delivery of a 2014 Sierra V6 DC ordered in Feb. My 2004 Silverado has the 4.8 V8. I love the power and the sound of that small V8 but always felt like it was way more than I ever needed. I had to go to ridiculous lengths to get much over 20mpg out it.

 

It was still a tough call for me, choosing the V6. I didnt choose the V6 because it is cheaper or because the price of fuel is forcing me to. I can afford any truck that The General makes. I just dont want to pay for or live with the over-capacity that the 5.3 would be for me. I would have chosen an SLT with a V6 but it is not offered. They only put the V6 on the lower and mid trim levels. That means Sierra WT or SLE only.

 

There were no V6 trucks at dealers in a 500mi radius that had the fancy options I wanted. Dealer lots dont have any V6 SLEs with bucket-seats. And they definitely dont stock any 2WD V6 SLEs with Z71 pkg and 20 wheels + bucket seats + summit white.

 

Ive strayed pretty far from the original topic, just venting, frustrated with having to order to get a nicely decked out V6. My Double-Cab is sitting outside the Fort Wayne IN Assembly Plant right now, ready to deliver.

smart man, you noticed the 4.3L is actually bigger in V4 mode than the 5.3L.

 

I too had to drive out of state to find a V6 crew 4x4 with leather.

 

I feel the 4.3L is fine stock, unloaded the thing has more than enough power for me.

Edited March 23, 2014 by disc0monkey

[bdbake01]

I actually never considered the V4 mode displacement. This does introduce a very interesting discussion point, now doesn't it?

 

I did the math on my 6.2.

[iCryWheniGoPoop]

The apple to apple comparison being the same 4.3 engine size. Hp was down by 5, the weight on my truck is 3750lbs. Please don't get me wrong I like the new 4.3. I only wish that GM had come out with this engine sooner, like in the year 2000. With the new 4.3 compression of 11 to 1, I don't think that I would put a turbo on it.

Oh, so because the displacement is the same, it's an Apple to Apple comparison? Lol! I'm not going to even justify this with a counter argument.

 

What's wrong with turboing an engine with 11.1? Is it because it's tougher? Because its not... Is it because it requires somebody who knows what they are doing when tuning, well that goes without saying for any turbo build and from what I can see after tuning mine, this New DI engine already has the injector capacity, map sensor capacity and looks like it will not require any change in the operating system. High compression engines just require less boost and less timing to make respectable power but turbo newbies only think about boost pressure, it's easier I guess. Is it a little tougher to run on pump gas? Maybe a little... But I like to run E85 on my high compression turbo builds when looking for max power but it would sure be nice to have a vehicle already capable of this.. Wait... Aren't these FFV from factory. It really isn't a scientific phenomenon to build a good reliable street turbo build for an 11.1 engine on 91/93 pump gas.

Should I not turbo my 5.3 because it's 11.1? Watch Me!

[iCryWheniGoPoop]

smart man, you noticed the 4.3L is actually bigger in V4 mode than the 5.3L.

 

I too had to drive out of state to find a V6 crew 4x4 with leather.

 

I feel the 4.3L is fine stock, unloaded the thing has more than enough power for me.

Well, he is correct about V4 displacement but.... 6/8ths? Lol

[GPGuy]

Lots of great points here guys! Thanks for the input as it's created a great discussion. Keep 'em coming.