4.3 Ecotec3 Turbo, anyone ever done it?

[tim5779]

I have a 2017 Sierra 4.3.  I've been looking to trade it for a V8, but I've put a TON of money in this truck over the past 2 years and don't really want to start over.  So my mind directly goes to a Turbo.  Just wondering if this is possible without screwing up your truck?  If so, anyone have a link to a good kit?

[WHITESSTOWPIG]

A turbo system had been done on the V6 some time ago and it made 424whp before they ran out of fuel.Trading in on a V8 truck would certainly be the cheapest option but my suggestion would be to drive one if you havent already before deciding.Ive driven every engine in every cab configuration and can tell you that your next truck should be 6.2 for it to be a considerable difference.Most 4WD 5.3's I have seen dyno about the same as 2WD 4.3's using E85.Here are some common stock dyno numbers I have seen for each engine.The V8 numbers would be 40whp higher with intake / longtubes / tune and the V6 numbers would be 20whp higher with only intake / tune since they do not sell longtubes for them.All numbers are from 2WD models using 3rd gear 4WD models would be roughly 20whp lower.

 

6.2 360whp on GAS

5.3 320whp on E85

4.3 270whp on E85

[tim5779]

Bump.....

[jshrubs]

Curious about this as well..

[Grumpy Bear]

A RCSB 2WD 4.3  has a higher wheel horse power to weight ratio than the 5.3 crew cab everyone loves so much on equivalent fuel. It's fractional but it is higher. 

[mookdoc6]

4 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

A RCSB 2WD 4.3  has a higher wheel horse power to weight ratio than the 5.3 crew cab everyone loves so much on equivalent fuel. It's fractional but it is higher. 

They look and feel good too!  I am seeing RCSB on T1's lately and I admit I like the look of em the Silvy's anyways.....Sleek, yet tough looking from the side profile.

[flyingfool]

your better off swapping in a 6.2 motor and trans from a wrecker, motors are like $1600-2000

[flyingfool]

On 1/24/2020 at 1:01 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

A RCSB 2WD 4.3  has a higher wheel horse power to weight ratio than the 5.3 crew cab everyone loves so much on equivalent fuel. It's fractional but it is higher. 

the little v6 does have  more mechanical advantage than the 5.3, because GM installed longer connecting rods on thier v6 motors. this increases power output significantly, and bumps torque. pound for pound i find the v6 mor impressive than the v8. but torque makes you a God when it comes to overweight trucks, hence the 6.2 is the way to go!  everyone gets lost in HP goals, when torque improvements makes the vehicle less high strung and more enjoyable and relaxing to drive

[Grumpy Bear]

450 hp. / 510 lb.-ft. torque Ford 3.5 V6 twin turbo EcoBoost HO

 

420 hp. / 460 lb.-ft. torque GM 6.2 V8 Ecotec3

 

Getting enough torque is not a problem with a boosted motor.

 

 

I look at those Ford numbers and wonder what they would look like with that added displacement the 4.3 brings. 

552 hp. / 627 lb.-ft. (same power density)

 

Thing is, I'd like the factory to try it first.

 

BOOM!

[flyingfool]

what are the power torque numbers compared to rpm?

boost kills vehicle reliability, not to mention ford engines are very unreliable from experience.. there is a lot of monkey motion going on under the hood of a modern FORD, if you want boost i suggest you lease , otherwise you will be learning a hard lesson paying a shop to install turbos on a modern car/truck.

[Grumpy Bear]

Okay Chevy then. 2.7 turbo has a loyal following already pulling heady billiard table flat torque, 348 lb./ft. from 1500 to 4000 rpm.  310 hp. by 5600. It's claimed indestructible by GM. A bit more power than a NA 4.3 Ecotec3. Just...but....Google that dyno chart!

 

Modern turbo tech is almost supercharger like in delivery from the OEM's. Scale that up to 4.3 liters. 493 lb.-ft. / 554 hp. Ouch, that made it worse for the 6.2.

 

Hey I'm not a big fan either but it seems this is where the 'kids' are going to take us. Me? I'm totally happy with a stock NA 4.3

 

Torque is about cylinder pressure and that is limited only by the fuels knock resistance. That's the part that is mind blowing about motors like these new mini motor turbo packages. 

[KARNUT]

I’ve had plenty of turbo diesels and a few blown V8 trucks. On the the V-8 gas engines that I put blowers on you could still get plenty of power for normal driving without much boost. At this point I’d rather have a bigger non boosted 4 or V-6 rather than a tiny engine making big boost for power. More parts to break and reliability questions. Kinda the same as making a big engine small with cylinder deactivation in my book, too many additional parts to break.

[flyingfool]

yes but a 6.2 turbo, and capable of running on 4 cylinders to sip fuel might have more impressive numbers than a high output 4/6 turbo set up

[Grumpy Bear]

Dad says, "I'll buy your turbo 4 if the name on the valve cover is Offenhauser". 

 

A bridge can be built over any river to carry any load. Frailty of a boosted mini doesn't come from being boosted or from a low cylinder count. Making parts to withstand the pressures isn't a 'complication', it's a design element. It's HOT RODDING. Same engineering methods used to get 305 hp. out of a 60's Shelby 289. Using an oak tree and not a toothpick as a bridge pilling isn't complication. You guys looked at the dyno charts on these motors? How early the peaks come? WOW! 

 

I don't dislike these motors because they are boosted and I believe them weak. I dislike them because they design them overly complicated. Multistage water and oil systems to send the absolute minimum fluid via some micky mouse, multi-staged and multi-solenoid valve computer controlled, failure prone electrical spaghetti factory it takes a NASA engineer to figure out. When your punching out over 2hp per cubic inch skimping on the fluids is STUPID.  Okay, okay.....

 

 

 

 

This isn't what the OP is trying to do. He's just looking to do the same thing 1SLOW1500 did. He asked for help, not for a father nor a voice of approval. We just are not that important...are we?  So ideas?

 

Gale Banks comes to mind for 'one off' projects like this if he isn't to 'big' for this sort of thins these days. I don't really run in those circles so I'll bet there are other 'relevant' boosted motor builders. I just don't know who. 

[WHITESSTOWPIG]

Sort of unrelated but if anyone is looking for deep throaty sound from this engine with pops and crackles on deceleration I may have the exhaust for you.After hearing all of the off the shelf catback systems on this engine I ended up going with just deleting the factory valved muffler and adding a single 3.5" tip to the end of the factory exhaust.Leaving the over the axle resonator helped cancel the V6's natural high pitched resonance and the added tip helped deepen the sound but overall it was still not what I was looking for.Next I ended up hollowing out the factory 3rd cat and running a 3" straight pipe exiting infront of the passenger tire with a 4" dual tip and the sound is insane.I have done similar exhaust mods to every car I have ever owned and this little V6 is the first one I have actually felt a power difference on.If you dont mind being a little obnoxious I highly recommend it