Jump to content

Goodbye 4.3, AFM 5.3 & 6 Speed

OnTheReel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

Loosing the Gen 5-4.3 LV3 is the second most ignorant thing I've ever seen GM do. Deleting the Series3 3800 was #1 all time screw up. Wonder if this means the LV1 is also toast. Third will be the loss of the MYC option. Figures. About the time they get it figured out...dump it. What a way to run a ship. :shakehead:

  • Like 2
OnTheReel Senior Enthusiast

OnTheReel

Posted
  • Author
Posted

They did need to simplify their offerings a bit. But I do think ditching the 4.3 6 speed might bite them. Mainly with their fleet buyers. Hard to picture these guys going to the unproven turbo 4 engine. And the 8 speed. Notorious for the bad publicity surrounding class action lawsuits. And now issues causing full transmission replacements on 2021 models.

CamGTP Senior Enthusiast

CamGTP

Posted
Posted (edited)

The 3800 couldn't meet emissions requirements anymore, that was part of it's downfall. Would have needed a complete overhaul to give it some new tech like VVT and so on. Plus they would need to add a second cat converter as well. Was easier to just drop the engine and improve the 3.6 that fit into so many other GM vehicles, plus it made more power.

 

The 4.3's days were numbered a long time ago in my opinion. They didn't get that much better fuel mileage than the V8 in many cab configurations and the new 2.7 beat it in mileage too.

Edited by CamGTP
f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
Posted

Curious if the 4.3 sales were slipping , Either way I'm surprised this engine lasted this long. ( yes i know it has been super durable) 

The 2.7 is here to stay . I also have a feeling the Colorado/Canyon will also get the 2.7 when GM eventually decided to re do them. 

Happy to see though the 5.3 with the AFM 6-speed is done. Just so silly you get 2 different iterations. ( who does that ?) 

Either way I'm excited to see the refresh/if engines got power bump/interior/new options on the 22 models.  

BIGDOGx Senior Enthusiast

BIGDOGx

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, f8l vnm said:

Curious if the 4.3 sales were slipping , Either way I'm surprised this engine lasted this long. ( yes i know it has been super durable) 

The 2.7 is here to stay . I also have a feeling the Colorado/Canyon will also get the 2.7 when GM eventually decided to re do them. 

Happy to see though the 5.3 with the AFM 6-speed is done. Just so silly you get 2 different iterations. ( who does that ?) 

Either way I'm excited to see the refresh/if engines got power bump/interior/new options on the 22 models.  

Hard to promote an engine they literally buried in only stripped down work truck models.

 

Yes Ford sells a ton of 2.7 trucks but the GM version unlike the Ford in minus 2 cylinders and also a turbo! Not to mention the whole 4.3 being almost as old as me 😫 and a very dependable power plant.

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
Curious if the 4.3 sales were slipping , Either way I'm surprised this engine lasted this long. ( yes i know it has been super durable) 
The 2.7 is here to stay . I also have a feeling the Colorado/Canyon will also get the 2.7 when GM eventually decided to re do them. 
Happy to see though the 5.3 with the AFM 6-speed is done. Just so silly you get 2 different iterations. ( who does that ?) 
Either way I'm excited to see the refresh/if engines got power bump/interior/new options on the 22 models.  

GM had two versions of 5.3s a few years back. Cast and aluminum. If you go waaaay back. Different Hp version of one engines were common. My last el Camino has 3 different versions of 327s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted

That is one thing I’ll give Ford credit for. You can order a stripped down XL truck with their highest engine package option. TFLtrucks “Andre” just did it on his new Ford with the power post engine. 
GM needs to allow their customers to choose what engine they want in any configuration. 
As for the 4.3L. They should drop that into the Colorado/Canyon now as a base engine. The 3.6L is nice but it lacks in TQ. The 4.3L really shines in that department compared to it. Or like other have mentioned the 2.7L might be a great option as well. Also offer a twin turbo 3.6L as the ZR2 engine choice   That truck alone needs to have an engine option all to itself. 

  • Like 1
redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

https://www.gm-trucks.com/chevy-gmc-dropping-legacy-4-3l-and-5-3l-engines-along-with-six-speed-for-2022/?fbclid=IwAR0U3v0u-ko-yn4C84Q7TX-csA-wSgB0Zv14l-hqu5SDCbU3OpRJxRXeIdE

 

Looks like GM is finally thinning out the engine and transmission selection. 

Must finally be getting enough production capacity online for the 10 speed

  • Like 1
OnTheReel Senior Enthusiast

OnTheReel

Posted
  • Author
Posted

We can hope the 10 speed goes across the board, it would make a huge difference.

 

I don’t follow Cadillac too much anymore but I was surprised to see they are using the L3B in the CT4-V. Uptuned a fair amount to 325hp and 380tq. If GM brings those numbers to the T1’s 2.7, it would actually be comparable to the Ford 2.7.

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hmmmm....

 

I had some suspicion that the 4.3 was done at some point with the way they've been promoting the 2.7T as being more powerful and fuel efficient over it.

 

4.3 would have benefited from the 8 speed like in the Express/Savana.  They drive nice with the 8 over the 6.  Shame they aren't keeping it and doing that.  

 

I'm less worried about the 8 speed than the 6 speed which sounds insane but at work, for every 20-30 6L80 we do physical repairs on, we do 1 8L90.  Plenty of 8 speed fluid swaps though.  

 

It would be nice to see the 3.0 diesel trickle down to the Custom and WT trims to fill the engine gap. 

 

Also they need to offer a freaking power driver seat on WT and Custom other than optioning the 2.7T which gets you it.  

 

Oooh!  Look at that chart in the video about 1:35.  The Custom Trail Boss gets the 2.7T as the base engine.  No 5.3 either?  Just 2.7T and 6.2.  

 

 

Edited by newdude
newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, OnTheReel said:

We can hope the 10 speed goes across the board, it would make a huge difference.

 

I don’t follow Cadillac too much anymore but I was surprised to see they are using the L3B in the CT4-V. Uptuned a fair amount to 325hp and 380tq. If GM brings those numbers to the T1’s 2.7, it would actually be comparable to the Ford 2.7.

 

1:35 in the video.  8 speeds and 10 speeds.  

 

On the 2.7 from the Cadillac.  It would be nice but then would raise operating costs as the HO 2.7T calls for 91/93 octane.  

Edited by newdude
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, BIGDOGx said:

Hard to promote an engine they literally buried in only stripped down work truck models.

 

Yes Ford sells a ton of 2.7 trucks but the GM version unlike the Ford in minus 2 cylinders and also a turbo! Not to mention the whole 4.3 being almost as old as me 😫 and a very dependable power plant.

My neighbor and once upon a time boss has a 4.3 in an LT K2 CCSB and loves it. Pulls a flat bed he hauls lathes and mills on. 

Secondly the only thing the Ecotec3 4.3 has in common with the LS 4.3 is it just happens to have the same displacement. Zero interchangeable hard parts. This version is literally built on the 5.3/6.2 architecture. The power advantage of the 2.7 is nearly nil and boyz, drive the same gets the same mileage. The failing six speeds are not behind the 4.3 which uses a VERY different torque converter. 

 

15 hours ago, CamGTP said:

The 3800 couldn't meet emissions requirements anymore, that was part of it's downfall. Would have needed a complete overhaul to give it some new tech like VVT and so on. Plus they would need to add a second cat converter as well. Was easier to just drop the engine and improve the 3.6 that fit into so many other GM vehicles, plus it made more power.

 

The 4.3's days were numbered a long time ago in my opinion. They didn't get that much better fuel mileage than the V8 in many cab configurations and the new 2.7 beat it in mileage too.

 

Lastly the 3800 refresh was an evolution of refreshes starting about 1960-62. VVT is as much a no brainer as an upgrade and removing it is from the 5.3/6.2. Then there is this. The 3.6 has never and will never be as reliable nor as durable as the 3800.

 

The 3800 Series III in my Buick already meets ULEV standards for about another decade now like the Honda DB5Y was about 20 years ahead. You can stuff a 3800 in any hole a 3600 will fit it. This move had nothing to do with EPA and everything to do with marketing image. 

  • Thanks 1
newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Secondly the only thing the Ecotec3 4.3 has in common with the LS 4.3 is it just happens to have the same displacement. Zero interchangeable hard parts. This version is literally built on the 5.3/6.2 architecture. 

 

 

Lastly the 3800 refresh was an evolution of refreshes starting about 1960-62. VVT is as much a no brainer as an upgrade and removing it is from the 5.3/6.2. Then there is this. The 3.6 has never and will never be as reliable nor as durable as the 3800.

 

The 3800 Series III in my Buick already meets ULEV standards for about another decade now like the Honda DB5Y was about 20 years ahead. You can stuff a 3800 in any hole a 3600 will fit it. This move had nothing to do with EPA and everything to do with marketing image. 

 

Ah the old 4.3 was not LS based however.  The Vortec 4.3 was still Gen 1 small block based and shared nothing with the LS engines.

 

3800 was a unit for sure.  A gen 4 version that was all aluminum with DI, VVT and a 6 speed automatic would have brought it to a sweet spot.  

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
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

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 1,213 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...