yeah i got something to say

[stewart76]

..... how about putting the big 6 cylinder motor that you have in the trailblazers and put them standard in the fullsize silverados..... along with a locking 3:73 rear end and in my opinion your standard work truck sales will increase..... oh and make it reasonable

[paul8488]

Very interesting idea... the 4.2L was a Ward's best engine several years ago, and is certainly underused. What a great way to further the reach of the Silverado (assuming it could undercut the base engine in price by a useful amount). I wonder if it could slide in easily, since it's quite long. Keeping it a Chevrolet-only option would also help to differentiate the Silverado and Sierra. I like your idea!

[61BelAir]

I wouldn't buy the current base model with the 4.3, but if it the had the 4.2 I'd definitely be in the market. A while back they said it was gonna have the 3.5/3.7 motor from the canyon. I wonder what happened to that scenario?

I doubt they would ever do the 4.2L though as its currently making 290HP I think which would be more than the 4.8L V8 and almost as much as the 5.3L

[shadams]

From what little I know about this, the 4.3 is cheap to build, and the others arent. Not a good combo when you are trying to make a work truck. Besides the fact the the 4.3 is ancient, it is very reliable and makes good power/torque for a base model engine. Anything more and it loses the "base" factor.

[t-rex]

Would there be a fuel economy advantage using the Atlas 4200 instead of the old Vortec 4300 in the GMT900s??

Since the GMT360s are thirsty as hell (barely better than a Tahoe), I'd reckon the Atlas wouldn't offer any economic savings.

It just seems odd that GM would invest in a whole family of engines to only put in 1 or 2 vehicle lines.

[61BelAir]

Originally Posted by t-rex

Would there be a fuel economy advantage using the Atlas 4200 instead of the old Vortec 4300 in the GMT900s??

Since the GMT360s are thirsty as hell (barely better than a Tahoe), I'd reckon the Atlas wouldn't offer any economic savings.

It just seems odd that GM would invest in a whole family of engines to only put in 1 or 2 vehicle lines.

When the 4.2 was first released it was on the Wards 10 best list for a couple years. Wouldn't that be a great selling point for the base model truck. The 4.3 is a good little motor, but its way past its prime. To old I think to be in such a nice truck.

[darndot]

Some of the old timers that remember the straight six motors of the 50's and 60's might want one. Theses would be the same people that say as the 5.3 is really an 327. My dad would be in this group of people. When we bought the TB he told me that there is nothing better than a straight six.

I just don't like a six in a full size truck. I would just sell them with the smaller V8. If anything bring back a manual transmission.

[t-rex]

Originally Posted by darndot

I just don't like a six in a full size truck. I would just sell them with the smaller V8. If anything bring back a manual transmission.

Nearly all truck buyers feel the same way. Preferring a smaller V8 to a six, even though the six may be more powerful. That's the sad fate of the Atlas: despite being a very good engine, perceptions will keep it from having any success in a fullsize truck or SUV. The truck=V8 equation is simply too deeply imbedded in our minds. Even if GM were to offer the 4200 in the fullsizers, it's unlikely that it would attract many buyers. With the Trailvoys all but dead in a few years, the only hope for this excellent engine to survive would be maybe a GMT355 replacement that could be designed to fit the big six into it.

It reminds me of two awesome truck engines that never took off because of changes in buyer preferences. Sixes ruled the fullsize truck market until around 1964-1965, when V8s suddenly took off and within a few years were outselling sixes by a wide margin. Chrysler's slant six wasn't powerful enough for its trucks, so they designed a brilliant big-block hemi-head six for their trucks, but it never saw production, and was farmed off to the lucky Australians, who plopped it into the Valiant and made Aussie motoring history. A six so powerful, that when set up with the "six pack", blew the doors off of the 383 V8. And there was the GMC 60-degree V6 sold from '61 to '67. This jobbie out-torqued most V8s of the day, and was probably the most indestructible engine ever made. But with truck buyers swinging heavily to V8s by '67, GM relegated this brilliant design to heavy-duty use, or sold for industrial applications. It'll be sad if the 4200 Atlas becomes a mere footnote in the history books.

[01cavalier]

Those that want a 6-cylinder in a full size truck are typically only out for a cheap truck. That would be fleet vehicles for the most part. As for a fuel economy advantage, there really is not much of one and since the V8 engines are about as powerful, there is no use in using the 4.2.

[61BelAir]

Originally Posted by 01cavalier

Those that want a 6-cylinder in a full size truck are typically only out for a cheap truck. That would be fleet vehicles for the most part. As for a fuel economy advantage, there really is not much of one and since the V8 engines are about as powerful, there is no use in using the 4.2.

If the 4.2L were in the base model and it were cheaper then it would have a use. Especially if you advertise the difference in HP for the base model motors, Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge

I personally would buy the base model with the 4.2, even if they detuned it a little I wouldn't mind. They could change the tuning to get more torque with maybe a little sacrifice in HP

[Canuck]

Your suggestion is a great one. Also why are the Lamdas powered by the 3.6 V6 instead of the 4.2? Is it because the Lamdas are FWD/AWD drive and not RWD/AWD.
Is the 3.6 cheaper to build than the 4.2?

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by Canuck

Your suggestion is a great one. Also why are the Lamdas powered by the 3.6 V6 instead of the 4.2? Is it because the Lamdas are FWD/AWD drive and not RWD/AWD.
Is the 3.6 cheaper to build than the 4.2?

The 4.2 has a SEVERE packaging issue in FWD use. The thing is TALL, and LONG.

The only reason they don't use it in the Full-Size Trucks is that for the cost it is not worth it; in fact the entire Atlas Engine line while great engines are a WASTE of money if you have the HF V6's.

The MPG on them is horrid, you have to gear the truck to sift at 2500 if you want any MPG, but then towing suffers.

[Ach]

Why isn't the Atlas 4200 in the Colorado/Canyon?

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

Originally Posted by darndot

I just don't like a six in a full size truck. I would just sell them with the smaller V8. If anything bring back a manual transmission.

You mean... there isn't one? At all

I have a 4.3 fullsize Chevy... it's a great truck engine. It's got excellent low-end power, excellent durability, decent economy (better than a V8 normally, but when you're towing it sucks just as much as a 305 would).

The 4.3 still makes good power, good economy, meets all the emissions regs and all that. Why change something that has been good for so long? They first started putting 350 V8's in GM pickups in 1968. And in 1998, they were still putting 350 V8's... sure it is "old", but that doesn't mean the engine has been improved dramatically (especially the 4.3, the Vortec heads really made it) and that it isn't "good". The 4.3 kicks the imitation-Buick Ford 4.2's ass!

Now why not make a "4.3" out of say, the 5.3 V8... the 4.3 is basically a mid 90's 5700 Vortec with two cylinders chopped off... why not "make a new one"...

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

Originally Posted by Ach

Why isn't the Atlas 4200 in the Colorado/Canyon?

I don't think it fits.

And about inline sixes... they are GREAT. The basic structure of an inline six gives it extremely good balance and smoothness. Anyone ever drive a BMW? The only redeeming aspect of BMW's is their great inline sixes... they feel almost like a turbine engine

By comparison V6's are rough, coarse, crappy. They've improved a lot, but inlines have too

Personally I think GM is going to euthanize the Atlas engines fairly soon with the end of the Colorados. They don't really have a raison d'etre... when they came out there was a lot of buzz about the engines going into the "Chi" W-body replacements, with turbo 5-cylinders in the mix... now I think they are just going to use Ecotecs and some V6's instead. And maybe the 5.3 or 4.8 instead of the sixer.