GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,692 Posts
Today, GM offers a 4.3-liter V-6, rated at 15/20 mpg city/highway, as the standard engine for its two-wheel-drive regular and extended cab WT grade pickups. The 4.3-liter V-6 is based on a twenty year old design.
I have the 4.3L wheezer in my 2004 Safari. Sorry, it's not a great engine. It's a lump. It's hard to believe that they still offer the old engine and have no apparent plans to replace it.

I used to think that the I-5 in the Canyon/Colorado would be a good fit for a low end Silverado, but full size trucks just seem to get bigger every model change, and apparently someone at GM didn't think through the versatility (or fuel economy) of the I-5 and I-6 Atlas engines very well. From what I've read in the past, they would not be easily interchangeable with other GM platforms (the H3 is on a modified Canyon/Colorado platform) due to their shape/size/configuration.

So off on a tangent now, but are the Atlas engines on their way out? I don't see any plans underway to utilize them in new product, and with the Trailblazer line fizzling out and no apparent effort from GM to sell Canyons and Colorados, and wit HUMMER on the chopping block....well, it doesn't seem to bode well for the Atlas engines that, when I was new to GM fan forums, was the "future" of GM truck engines, and was on Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2002 through 2005.

Anyone have the inside scoop on the future of the Atlas engine family?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I do not have any clue as to the Atlas future. I do wonder though on the 2.9's future. Being built in Tonawanda, would they get rid of the 2.9 line to make room for the new 4.5 Duramax scheduled to be built there. It would be nice to see if the 2.3 I-4 going into the next Equinox could replace the Vortec 2900 if Tonawanda cut its production. As for the Vortec 3700, the 3.6 DI could work. However if the 5.3 stays in the Col/Canyon, there would be no point in keeping it seeing as the 3.6 makes close power numbers. I keep thinking I read somewhere about GM developing a 3.0 DI-V6. If that were true at all, then that could replace the 3700 and there would be room for the 5300. What you said about the 4.3 is true. But, if the 3.6 replaced it, what would become of the 4.8?? 3.6 makes the same or more power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
In a recent offroad magazine they said that the DI 3.6L would be available in the Colorado/Canyon and Hummer H3 soon, does anyone know if that's a fact?

Hmm, if it were true, whats the point of the V8?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,774 Posts
As the 4.3L V6 was a chopped 5.7L SB V8 the new 6.0L V8 could be the bases for a 4.5L V6. With a balance shaft and AFM and DI it could be a nice bases and more powerful modern OHV V6 engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
I have the 4.3L wheezer in my 2004 Safari. Sorry, it's not a great engine. It's a lump. It's hard to believe that they still offer the old engine and have no apparent plans to replace it.

I used to think that the I-5 in the Canyon/Colorado would be a good fit for a low end Silverado, but full size trucks just seem to get bigger every model change, and apparently someone at GM didn't think through the versatility (or fuel economy) of the I-5 and I-6 Atlas engines very well. From what I've read in the past, they would not be easily interchangeable with other GM platforms (the H3 is on a modified Canyon/Colorado platform) due to their shape/size/configuration.

So off on a tangent now, but are the Atlas engines on their way out? I don't see any plans underway to utilize them in new product, and with the Trailblazer line fizzling out and no apparent effort from GM to sell Canyons and Colorados, and wit HUMMER on the chopping block....well, it doesn't seem to bode well for the Atlas engines that, when I was new to GM fan forums, was the "future" of GM truck engines, and was on Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2002 through 2005.

Anyone have the inside scoop on the future of the Atlas engine family?
The 4.3 is one of the best engines GM has ever built. While it didn't have the top end HP newer V6s have, the 250+ ft-lb of torque was always very nice. That and fuel economy was always pretty good considering how big the engine was. It's too bad the engine wasn't updated with the V8s because it probably could have lived longer.

The Atlas program just shows how dumb GM can be. The 4.2 is an amazing engine. With a little fuel economy tweaking it would be worth keeping around except it doesn't fit in anything. The I4 and I5 are junk in comparison.

I have always thought the lack of a competent V6 holds back the Colorado. If the HF-V6 is going in the Colorado (and ups the towing a little) I will definitely look into getting one.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
I would say that any time they can simplify the engine programs and potentially cut an engine and replace with existing engines can only help long term, the fewer engine types supported, the more common the parts, the more money that can be invested into each engine type to make it a better engine.

I think with the way the current gas price issue has gone, fuel economy will become a prominent discussion topic in the purchase of a majority of the vehicles. Obviously i you are buying a Corvette ZR1 or a CTS-V then fuel economy isn't the biggest deal but for the mainstream vehicles it is now a big selling point.

Reduce the number of engines types and then work to make the rest of them better. Not forgetting that we will probably see a majority of the engines support VVT, DI, etc etc. Make pretty much every single engine type support all of the fuel saving features and then apply them as needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
They either need to limit truck sales to commercial use only or put a gas guzzler tax on the big trucks and SUVs that people buy just to have.
I thought Communism existed only in China, Cuba, and North Korea. Of course, we don't know where the quoted post originated. Some of us with disabilities NEED a large truck to haul mobility equipment. Some folks on this site are just morons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,528 Posts
They either need to limit truck sales to commercial use only or put a gas guzzler tax on the big trucks and SUVs that people buy just to have.
not everyone that buys a truck buys it just to have one or for commercial use,there are things called boats that cant be towed with a malibu
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
The 4.3 is one of the best engines GM has ever built. While it didn't have the top end HP newer V6s have, the 250+ ft-lb of torque was always very nice. That and fuel economy was always pretty good considering how big the engine was. It's too bad the engine wasn't updated with the V8s because it probably could have lived longer.
I'll 2nd that.... the 4.3 is one of the best truck engines ever my 01 Silverado has one in a 4x4 long bed combo and its hauled a full pallet of stone pavers with NO problem... its not a V8 by no means but its does what many people need to do is point A to point B with an load here or there.

DO you know how many people wont look at the colorado/canyon becuase they DON'T have a 4.3. Many s10 owners swaped brands cuase the lame 5cylinder aint the same as the 4.3

if GM starts putting 4cly and car v6's in Silverados you might as well STOP making them. Trucks are TRUCKS they are meant to have truck engines. they might work in midsize trucks but NOT fullsize.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
Hmm, if it were true, whats the point of the V8?
There's plenty of point to LS based v8's, especially when DI is added. If the 5.3 v8's mpg can match the non-DI 3.6 HF v6 in the mid-size sedans and the Atlas I5 and I6 in the smaller trucks and suv's, then there's no question it has a role in the full size trucks and suv's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
As the 4.3L V6 was a chopped 5.7L SB V8 the new 6.0L V8 could be the bases for a 4.5L V6. With a balance shaft and AFM and DI it could be a nice bases and more powerful modern OHV V6 engine.
With the success the 4.3 had, I don't know why this couldn't be done. Cost effective, still powerful, and fuel efficient I'd bet.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,540 Posts
Well, whatever Putz says will be a lie or a distortion anyway so why bother wasting time with his words?

Fire the Putz - fire the Ole Wagoneer - even Toyota hasn't done as much damage to GM as these two idiots!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,840 Posts
They either need to limit truck sales to commercial use only or put a gas guzzler tax on the big trucks and SUVs that people buy just to have.
What ever happened to freedom of choice? And how are we to determine if somebody is buying a truck "just to have." And I'm assuming you'll apply this "just to have" tax to all sports and luxury cars as well? And don't forget about single people that buy 4/5 seat sedans "just to have." We need to tax their wastefullness as well.

Where do people come up with these brilliant ideas?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
I would much rather have the 4.3 then any v6 engine by anyone! My 1994 GMC 1500 has been overloaded and overweight for the last 125,000. It has hauled trucks on car trailers, boats, and pieces of boats from my home in RI to Fl twice and RI to Ok twice all with the truck over 150,000 miles. The last trip flat on the floor the get through the mountians and into TN. It may be alittle underpowered for the work it does but its A GREAT MOTOR! Thanx for reading.

1994 GMC C1500 175,017 miles
1986 GMC C3500 187,756 miles
1996 GMC Sonoma 75,002 miles
2006 Chevy Cobalt 45,106 miles
1972 Chevy Corvette 47,347 miles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,460 Posts
What ever happened to freedom of choice? And how are we to determine if somebody is buying a truck "just to have." And I'm assuming you'll apply this "just to have" tax to all sports and luxury cars as well? And don't forget about single people that buy 4/5 seat sedans "just to have." We need to tax their wastefullness as well.

Where do people come up with these brilliant ideas?
Have you visited a Lamborghini and Ferrari dealership lately? They put a gas guzzler tax on their cars. Oh, and let's not forget that the Cadillac STS with the Northstar has a gas guzzler tax as well.

I believe in freedom of choice, but with freedom comes responsibility. A lot of people buy these SUVs when they really don't have a need for them. If trucks were included in the CAFE calculation, they would be driving the fuel economy numbers way down.
 
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top