Jump to content

4.3 V6 gone in 2019?

Donstar

Recommended Posts

amxguy1970 Senior Enthusiast

amxguy1970

Posted
Posted

Couple of points, the V8 doesn't get the same mpg as the V6, period. Tests, science, common sense and real world tracking show otherwise.

 

I am trying to figure out what V6 "high performance" car karnut has when there is an option V8, that doesn't make the V6 high performance but rather the economical model...

 

There is very much a need and use for the V6, most of those crying one isn't needed (looking at you colossus) in many cases have no need for a V8 themselves and it just fills a void of compensation. Some yes tow fairly heavy regularly, others just want to check boxes and that includes engines (which I don't think the V6 is even available in the higher trims), for many the lower initial cost, better mpg, maintenance costs (including financing and insurance) all adds up, plus they can advertise a lower priced truck than if it came with a V8.

 

Not sure why this is the most popular thread in this section, funny to read some of the comments.

 

Tyler

  • Replies 249
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, amxguy1970 said:

Couple of points, the V8 doesn't get the same mpg as the V6, period. Tests, science, common sense and real world tracking show otherwise.

 

I am trying to figure out what V6 "high performance" car karnut has when there is an option V8, that doesn't make the V6 high performance but rather the economical model...

 

There is very much a need and use for the V6, most of those crying one isn't needed (looking at you colossus) in many cases have no need for a V8 themselves and it just fills a void of compensation. Some yes tow fairly heavy regularly, others just want to check boxes and that includes engines (which I don't think the V6 is even available in the higher trims), for many the lower initial cost, better mpg, maintenance costs (including financing and insurance) all adds up, plus they can advertise a lower priced truck than if it came with a V8.

 

Not sure why this is the most popular thread in this section, funny to read some of the comments.

 

Tyler

Thank You Tyler. 

 

I'll add; If cylinder count and displacement haven't any effect on economy then they haven't any on ecology. IF that's the case then we should all be driving trucks with 10 liter V12 makin a thousand horsepower and getting 40 mpg at 100 mph and passing 2025 emission standards.  It makes my head hurt to listen to people argue irrational positions. 

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
Couple of points, the V8 doesn't get the same mpg as the V6, period. Tests, science, common sense and real world tracking show otherwise.
 
I am trying to figure out what V6 "high performance" car karnut has when there is an option V8, that doesn't make the V6 high performance but rather the economical model...
 
There is very much a need and use for the V6, most of those crying one isn't needed (looking at you colossus) in many cases have no need for a V8 themselves and it just fills a void of compensation. Some yes tow fairly heavy regularly, others just want to check boxes and that includes engines (which I don't think the V6 is even available in the higher trims), for many the lower initial cost, better mpg, maintenance costs (including financing and insurance) all adds up, plus they can advertise a lower priced truck than if it came with a V8.
 
Not sure why this is the most popular thread in this section, funny to read some of the comments.
 
Tyler

2011 Genesis R Spec Sedan. You don’t know much do you? Comes in 6 or 8. Won a few car of the year awards. We still have bumper to bumper warranty. Wife’s car. If I remember right 0-60 low 5s, 1/4 mile low 13s. 27 mpg on highway, average 22 mpg overall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Campier Enthusiast

Campier

Posted
Posted

17/22 mpg 4.3 l V6 

16/22 mpg 5.3 l V8

The highway economy was the same, so I chose a V8 truck. I could tell the difference in acceleration when test driving both of them. After we bought the travel trailer, I was glad we went up. It's only 2800 pounds, but the wind drag saps the power of the engine.

 

That city mpg was so close that I think of them  as equal.

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I’ll make one more point on this. I like most engines. I even own a high performance 4cylinder, yes Tyler there are some as well as six. In in a Acura type R. It red lines at 8500, and a blast to drive. It’s 18 years old has 30K miles on it, wife’s toy. There’s a place for all. The logic to most people, 800$ savings not much gas savings doesn’t make sense. Most people who own them got discounts over the 800$ to buy them. Or bought them used for deep discounts. I don’t think most people who have V-8s would bang their head on the table and say, damn I could of had a V-6. Over and out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DONWT15 Enthusiast

DONWT15

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, pickmeup said:

Why all the hate on the v-6 ? If you don't want it...don't buy it. It has been around a long time and done a remarkable job .I 

:thumbs:

 

This is getting a little silly. The thread started with a couple of guys who are very happy with their V6 trucks and are concerned they won't be available when it's time to replace them. What's wrong with that? They got them because they felt there is an advantage for what they need and have succeeded in happy ownership. Again I ask, what's wrong with that?

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, DONWT15 said:

:thumbs:

 

This is getting a little silly. The thread started with a couple of guys who are very happy with their V6 trucks and are concerned they won't be available when it's time to replace them. What's wrong with that? They got them because they felt there is an advantage for what they need and have succeeded in happy ownership. Again I ask, what's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that at all. If you paid me to accept the 5.3 I'd still turn in down. You people listen to yourselves? The only motor more hated than the 4.3 Ecotec3 is the Ecotec3 5.3! Thing just wont live without a tune, an AFM delete, a catch can, an air tube, a cat back, a throttle body, a cooler, a.........it's 323 cubic inches for Pete's sake. It ain't all that nor the bag of chips served with it. If you want to find out what it isn't pair off with a twin turbo 3.5 Ford V-6. 365 horse/450 torque. Two stage GDI too. You cry like little girls your 5.3 will hammer the rings out of it if run as designed and cam and lifter failures are a given. What exactly are you fighting for? 

 

Your passing last rites over the 4.3, the 5.3 is a bucket of junk, your offering a mini diesel of unproven design and I can't get the killer 6.2 in a RCSB. GM has marketed itself right out of my future. 

DONWT15 Enthusiast

DONWT15

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

You cry like little girls your 5.3 will hammer the rings out of it if run as designed and cam and lifter failures are a given. What exactly are you fighting for? 

 

Your passing last rites over the 4.3, the 5.3 is a bucket of junk, your offering a mini diesel of unproven design and I can't get the killer 6.2 in a RCSB. GM has marketed itself right out of my future. 

Follow the logic people. You can't have it both ways.

Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
  • Author
Posted
21 hours ago, DONWT15 said:

Follow the logic people. You can't have it both ways.

It is a challenge, I'm sure, for auto manufacturers to come up with engine choices that please the largest number of people and achieve the the greatest amount of profit. Limiting choice is a cost effective production strategy but may open more doors for the competition.  I'm confident that if GM didn't offer a powerful 6 cylinder in the current generation of trucks, I would be now driving a Ford.  I truly believe GM may be trying to give it to us "both ways" in 2019.  In theory, DFM on a V8 should appease those of us who don't need a V8 and those people who insist that a V8 is necessary.  I believe this strategy has the potential of failing both camps but am optimistic GM knows more than me about marketing!

Imcrazy Senior Enthusiast

Imcrazy

Posted
Posted
On 3/29/2018 at 1:42 PM, amxguy1970 said:

Couple of points, the V8 doesn't get the same mpg as the V6, period. Tests, science, common sense and real world tracking show otherwise.

 

I am trying to figure out what V6 "high performance" car karnut has when there is an option V8, that doesn't make the V6 high performance but rather the economical model...

 

There is very much a need and use for the V6, most of those crying one isn't needed (looking at you colossus) in many cases have no need for a V8 themselves and it just fills a void of compensation. Some yes tow fairly heavy regularly, others just want to check boxes and that includes engines (which I don't think the V6 is even available in the higher trims), for many the lower initial cost, better mpg, maintenance costs (including financing and insurance) all adds up, plus they can advertise a lower priced truck than if it came with a V8.

 

Not sure why this is the most popular thread in this section, funny to read some of the comments.

 

Tyler

1) For all practical purposes the MPG is the same, the EPA wizards may rate 'em differently but, having owned both a 2014 4.3 4x4 3.42 ratio and a 2016 5.3 4x4 3.42 ratio - they get the same MPG... I can't comment on 2wd trucks as I've not owned 'em but, additional evidence when I had the 2014 4.3 my buddy had an identical silverado with a 5.3, we went on a vacation together with our wives and each drove our own trucks the exact same round trip and got the same MPG for the trip...

 

My point is sure in a test tube the EPA rates 'em differently but, put the trucks on the streets up and down hills etc and they're gonna get the same fuel econ.. If you take fuel economy out of the equation and assume that GM could sell the 5.3L for the same cost as the 4.3L if they dropped the overhead costs of running a second line for the 4.3 then what is the argument for it? Anyone who says they chose a V6 for any reason other than to save $$ on the purchase price and or fuel costs is lying, mostly to themselves lol.. To a man I can't imagine anyone turning down a V8 for a V6 if the operating and initial purchase costs were equal....

 

4.3 was a decent v6 and a big v6 at that... If they could make it pump out about 325 hp I think it would be sufficient to move the big K2 trucks but, up hill and or with a load / trailer it wasn't powerful enough to suit me, I wouldn't buy one again even if it saved me $2000 but, I drive on the highway a lot and I want to be able to merge at will / pass as needed without wondering if I press the gas harder will the truck move faster.... 

 

It's an interesting conversation I suppose, I don't give a flying flip personally if GM makes their 1500 serirs trucks with a 3.6, 4.3 or any other V6 I'd never buy one again but, if it suits the needs of others by offering a lower purchase price I can't blame them for going that route...

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Imcrazy said:

1) For all practical purposes the MPG is the same, the EPA wizards may rate 'em differently but, having owned both a 2014 4.3 4x4 3.42 ratio and a 2016 5.3 4x4 3.42 ratio - they get the same MPG... I can't comment on 2wd trucks as I've not owned 'em but, additional evidence when I had the 2014 4.3 my buddy had an identical silverado with a 5.3, we went on a vacation together with our wives and each drove our own trucks the exact same round trip and got the same MPG for the trip...

 

My point is sure in a test tube the EPA rates 'em differently but, put the trucks on the streets up and down hills etc and they're gonna get the same fuel econ.. If you take fuel economy out of the equation and assume that GM could sell the 5.3L for the same cost as the 4.3L if they dropped the overhead costs of running a second line for the 4.3 then what is the argument for it? Anyone who says they chose a V6 for any reason other than to save $$ on the purchase price and or fuel costs is lying, mostly to themselves lol.. To a man I can't imagine anyone turning down a V8 for a V6 if the operating and initial purchase costs were equal....

 

4.3 was a decent v6 and a big v6 at that... If they could make it pump out about 325 hp I think it would be sufficient to move the big K2 trucks but, up hill and or with a load / trailer it wasn't powerful enough to suit me, I wouldn't buy one again even if it saved me $2000 but, I drive on the highway a lot and I want to be able to merge at will / pass as needed without wondering if I press the gas harder will the truck move faster.... 

 

It's an interesting conversation I suppose, I don't give a flying flip personally if GM makes their 1500 serirs trucks with a 3.6, 4.3 or any other V6 I'd never buy one again but, if it suits the needs of others by offering a lower purchase price I can't blame them for going that route...

If frogs had wings you could assume they wouldn't bump their a** when they jump. Debate isn't your long suit eh? :rolleyes:

 

I'd be that Anyone your speaking to and calling a liar. Keep your V-8. :devil:

 

So 305 hp isn't enough but 20 hp more is? :lol:

 

"to suit me" and there you have it in a nut shell.............. :puke:ME, me, me, me, me. 

Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 minutes ago, Imcrazy said:

 

It's an interesting conversation I suppose, I don't give a flying flip personally if GM makes their 1500 serirs trucks with a 3.6, 4.3 or any other V6 I'd never buy one again but, if it suits the needs of others by offering a lower purchase price I can't blame them for going that route...

I agree that it is an interesting conversation.  One of the points I've tried to make is that I believe the 4.3 has ample power for all of my needs and I place no value on additional surplus power. Assuming GM charged the same for their engines all other options  would have greater influence on my truck buying decision.  I appreciate that this is hard to believe and brings my man card into question but it's true.

j-ten-ner Senior Enthusiast

j-ten-ner

Posted
Posted

I vote for the V8. But for different reasons. Has to do with my background.

The fuel economy will be pretty much the same when you drive both engines the same way. Same driving style, same load etc.

You're moving around the same mass with the same effort to keep up with whatever it is.

When you use the truck as a tool with all the amenities it comes with, but you're driving it in a confident manner and don't have to be the first on top of the hill, the V6 WILL have better fuel economy. If you can manage to merge onto the highway w/o panicking (because you know how...) then you know what I'm talking about.

Some users say something along the line: "I don't buy a truck to care about fuel economy...". Why not? Why not have a TOOL what gives you everything you need but it can also be cost efficient?

The point has been made before, to each his own. You need constant power because you're afraid that you'll get stuck on a mole hill, then go for the V8.

But if you don't care about who's 5 minutes sooner at the dinner table and you want to watch your ownership cost then go with the V6.

For me it's not what I can afford, it's about what I want to afford.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Donstar said:

  I appreciate that this is hard to believe and brings my man card into question but it's true.

Anyone that would question your 'man card' for it isn't much of a man. 

29 minutes ago, j-ten-ner said:

For me it's not what I can afford, it's about what I want to afford.

Yep. 

 

The waitresses around here tell me the wealthy are the worst tippers. I tell them it's how they got their wealth.

 

I did a 200 mile round trip today about 60% Interstate and 35% Federal and State Highways and the remaining 5% city. Half into a 20 mph cross wind and half in my favor. 55 mph Interstate. 50 Primary and whatever the posted limits were with city limits. Trip average speed 48 mph. Trip average fuel efficiency 28.0 MPG. 25.9 mpg into the wind and 30.2 mpg with it. Now I could have driven that route 80 mph Interstate 60 primary and the result would have been something around 18 mpg.

 

Two things I know about my V6 after 58,000 miles I can drive it like a idiot and get an idiots result which will indeed be the same as the 5.3 results on the same run and speed; OR I can drive like I drive and get a result you couldn't get with a 5.3 V-8 if it fell 200 miles off a cliff with the motor off.  

 

 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 452 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...