Jump to content

new inline 6

gmcblu

Recommended Posts

Tahoepd Enthusiast

Tahoepd

Posted
Posted

I was just wondering when the 4200 inline 6 will be in the 1500.

Also, I think some time ago some was asking what they thought about the Avalanche.

Well I have only seen two on the road (one white & one blue) I like the front view (the lights, grille & bumper/valance). I really didn't like the profile. The fenders are to squared off.

No offence to the Avalanche owners, just my 2 cents.

Charles Enthusiast

Charles

Posted
Posted

I would also like to see the inline 6 in a 1500. Just think of the room under the hood. Can you say "Turbo" or "Blower"?! I thought I saw a thing in AutoWeek that it will be offerd in the 2003 GMC's

gmcblu Enthusiast

gmcblu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I've heard a little about the new straight sixes, but y'all probably know more so here's some questions for you:

What kind of gas mileage do they expect compared to the 4.3L V6?

What are the HP and torque numbers for the Trailblazers w/ I6?

What is the block made of?

I also would like to know when I can get one in a pickup.

Charles Enthusiast

Charles

Posted
Posted

What kind of gas mileage do they expect compared to the 4.3L V6?

16 *Est* City, 21 *Est* Hwy

What are the HP and torque numbers for the Trailblazers w/ I6?

SAE Net Horsepower, 270 @ 6000

SAE Net Torque (lb ft), 275 @ 3600

What is the block made of?

 Aluminum.

  Is it OK to scan the HP/Torque chart from the brochure and post it here? It has a nice flat torque curve. The brochure claims 90% of peak torque is available from 1600 rpm to 5600 rpm. :)

gmcblu Enthusiast

gmcblu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I won't tell if you won't...j/k I don't think that's a problem.  Thanks for the info I guess I coulda looked it up myself.

Pastmaster Enthusiast

Pastmaster

Posted
Posted

My dealer told me that he read that possibly GM was planning to build a new V6 using the 4.8/5.3L block with 2 missing cylinders along with the 4200 I6 rumor.  

Anyone heard anything about this?

Pastmaster Enthusiast

Pastmaster

Posted
Posted

It would be cheaper for GM, I would think.  Since the old 4.3L had 55hp and 70ft/lbs of torque less, I would guess a V6 would have somewhere around 240-250hp and same torque as currently.  

 

Zane Senior Enthusiast

Zane

Posted
Posted
Quote: from Pastmaster on 7:50 pm on July 31, 2001

My dealer told me that he read that possibly GM was planning to build a new V6 using the 4.8/5.3L block with 2 missing cylinders along with the 4200 I6 rumor.  

Anyone heard anything about this?

 

i know Gm has a new line of V6 engines coming out, but i'm not sure where they come from. One is a V6 with over 300 HP!!!!!

  • 2 weeks later...
oxidizr Enthusiast

oxidizr

Posted
Posted

These are the specs for the "new" v6's GM is planning:

3.2L Turbo DOHC V-6, 321hp@5500rpm and 364lb-ft@2000rpm

3.8L DOHC V-6 251hp@6000rpm, 263lb-ft@3000rpm

3.2L Turbo DOHC V-6 253hp5500rpm, 261lb-ft@1750rpm

2.8L Turbo DOHC V-6 290hp@5500rpm, 297lb-ft@2000rpm

The primary developement of these motors were done for the new Caddy CTS.

 

Kansas Kid Senior Enthusiast

Kansas Kid

Posted
Posted

I wonder if the 4.2 Vortec I6 would even fit in the engine bay of a new Silverado?  I looked at one in a Trailblazer, and it didn't appear all that big, but then again the Tralblazer was designed for a I6 motor.  Ever wonder why Ford and GM don't have an I6 diesel motor in the 3/4 ton and up pickups?  Its because the inline motor is too long for the engine bay, and still provide a reasonable sized radiator.  Of course the Dodge is designed for the Cummins, so it fits in there.

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

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 2,030 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • B14Sierra
      Cam chain tensioner question

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      So I'm in the middle of a DOD AFM delete on my 6.2 L86 Sierra. I had a pick holding the tensioner but after I got the Cam phaser gear off I was cleaning off all the rtv and apparently I didn't have the pick seated far enough in. I bumped it and the tensioner sprang forward.  I think everything is good but I want a second opinion. The top of the tensioner is just a looped piece of plastic that rides in that channel right? There is no spring or anything is there? I got the gear and chain back on and it seems tight and everything looks right. I'm hoping nothing fell out.
    • dna9656
      No low range 4 x 4

      By dna9656 · Posted

      My 2015 1500 LTZ Silverado suddenly won't go into 4 x 4 low. It will go into 4 x 4 high.
    • asilverblazer
      Transmission Woes :-(

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      Yep, just a quick reference point.    My main point being I’d do a thousand other things before I’d pay 10k for a transmission.    Speaking in ignorance cause I don’t look at these trucks, what is it worth? 20k?
    • asilverblazer
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      I think users are going to want to pick their monitored parameters, which parameters they want to see first.    It should probably start with baseline at a minimum and adjust to learned, but be able to overlay baseline for comparison.   A simple severity level would be able to determine what type of alerting is appropriate or user selectable.    Why not use the OBD port though?   I think a phone connection would be a good idea, push notifications type deal.   Number 1 issue is having data is useless if you don’t know what the data should be under normal conditions. 
    • Chuck FB
      summer road trips in the 2026 2500HD

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...