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

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,782
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    ShowMeShooter1332
    Newest Member
    ShowMeShooter1332
    Joined

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 6,059 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jsdirt
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jsdirt · Posted

      I was around and remember that era very well, so I'm calling b/s on that statement. If they were that bad no police department or taxi company would've bought a single one ... but they were used in both services (and fire) for DECADES. They were bulletproof and proven. Even the early 21st century ones weren't too bad! The early models were legendary.   Mine is proof, but people like atlas are blinded by agenda and refuse to believe facts right before their very eyes.   Even decades after they were built, a new generation started driving them, posting all their builds and shenanigans on Grandmarq.net and Crownvic.net. The failures would show up then, since they all were deep past 100k-150k miles by that point, and younger drivers tend to be a little aggressive, especially with vehicles than can lay a one-tire fire for as long as you hold your foot in it. They've more than proven themselves over the decades.   The only thing that'll really take them out is road salt. The bodies and sheet metal were garbage. A victim of the cheapout FoMoCo and GM have been partaking in before then, and since.   Today it's the stuff that counts - the undercarriage that rots away first!    GMs Caprice was no slouch either. Reliable as a stone ax - the opposite of what they build now.    
    • Jsdirt
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jsdirt · Posted

      Let me know how your vehicles do in 10 years. You don't know ******, kid. 😂    There's a reason that Panther platform was used as police, fire, and taxi service for DECADES ... long before you were born, apparently.
    • davester
      Disconnecting Battery

      By davester · Posted

      If your connector also has a big lever to get the connector on and off, you don't want to force the lever either way, as it becomes a bigger problem if you bust the lever or the mechanism it works.
    • davester
      Disconnecting Battery

      By davester · Posted

      It's just useful to disconnect the battery to prevent odd shorting out when unplugging/plugging stuff together.  I also  touch the two cable ends together (after disonnecting) to drain the small amount of stored battery energy in various modules.   I believe the main system where you need to be more concerned with, so you need to do the above and then wait some time, iss when you are working on the air bag system, to prevent inadvertent firing of the air bags.   The in-cab switches are just that, plain switches, it's generally not a problem to swap them in/out.  For my '12, I'll get an error message on the dash if I power up the truck w them unplugged, but that's it (power up= turn the ignition on).   The ITBC located above the spare tire is a computer that manages the trailer brake system.  That is probably more important to have the battery disconnected.  It does have to be programmed to the truck, either before or after it's installed, for it to work.  For my '12, I had a very hard time reinstalling the main connector to it (IDK if yours is the same or not), it turned out the silicon seal was jamming up, preventing it from going on all the way.  I finally got it fully installed by lubing the seal with a bit of dielectric grease, then it slid on and latched in place easily.
    • BCGM
      Remote Start Noise 2024 2500 HD Gas

      By BCGM · Posted

      JR ! I just got the truck back from the Dealership today . The technician did a cold remote start on the truck this morning and it made the noise . It was determined that it was a starter issue and replaced it under warranty . Of course   it did not make the sound after a new starter was put in because the truck was not cold . We will we see what happens tomorrow morning when I start the truck cold  . Keep tuned !   Oh I found a video on YouTube of a cold start and it did the same thing your truck and mine do , I will see if I can find it and post it up

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...