V6 in CC 4x4 with full size bed?

[ChevyV6]

What do you think about this particular model?

 

Oversized vehicle paired with an undermatched engine or unique combination of mpg and hauling capacity?

[Donstar]

What do you think about this particualar model?

 

Oversized vehicle paired with an undermatched engine or unique combination of mpg and hauling capacity?

The truck you describe has excellent power to weight to economy combination. I've owned a CC 4X4 Standard bed (full size) for over a year and never wished for more power. Ford, GM and Dodge produced very popular and larger family sized pickups in the 80's with far less power than the current GM V6. My 1980 F150 V8 and 1985 L6 SuperCabs with 8 ft beds had 2" longer wheel bases and both were just over 100 hp! I didn't have any difficulties hauling to the limits of a 1/2 ton with those trucks. My current truck has almost three times the horsepower, three more gears in the transmission and a 3.42 as opposed to a 3.08 rear axle. GM produces three excellent engine choices. The smallest has ample power for what the truck is rated for and the larger engines have more!

[beyondbasic]

The truck you describe has excellent power to weight to economy combination. I've owned a CC 4X4 Standard bed (full size) for over a year and never wished for more power. Ford, GM and Dodge produced very popular and larger family sized pickups in the 80's with far less power than the current GM V6. My 1980 F150 V8 and 1985 L6 SuperCabs with 8 ft beds had 2" longer wheel bases and both were just over 100 hp! I didn't have any difficulties hauling to the limits of a 1/2 ton with those trucks. My current truck has almost three times the horsepower, three more gears in the transmission and a 3.42 as opposed to a 3.08 rear axle. GM produces three excellent engine choices. The smallest has ample power for what the truck is rated for and the larger engines have more!

couldn't agree more.

[Knightfall]

I got curious one time and looked up the actual weight differences between smaller and bigger beds, cabs, etc. It's really not that significant.

[tmo]

Not sure if your looking to buy. I believe it's how you plan to drive the truck. I drive a bit more aggressive and the v6 just doesn't deliver like I would like it too and if you have roads with any amount of hills don't even look at fuel eco. I'm lucky to get 17 in perfect conditions. I don't dislike the engine, but it could be better (cough, ecoturd, cough) and I'm not even a ford fan. It probably is a bit underpowered if you plan on towing, but for everyday driving it probably would be fine.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[f8l vnm]

Go drive a 4.3 and then a 5.3. All the opinions in the world wouldn't match you driving them back to back.

[Brian S.]

I drove a 2014 4.3l double cab with the 3.42 gears and 6'6" bed for a year, and have had two 5.3ls in the years since.

 

There is not a big difference in the performance, especially if you run E85 in the 4.3. I think this is due to tuning of the transmission for fuel economy, on straight spec the 5.3l should seem much different.

 

The 5.3l tows my 2500lb boat better, but the 4.3l towed it pretty easily. (I think the tow capacity was 6700lbs)

 

People say I drive with a "heavy foot" and I got 17.4mpg in my year with the 4.3l, and 16mpg in the years since.

 

The 4.3l V6 has the power of the last gen 4.8l V8. If you get a better deal on the 4.3l it's not bad at all unless you plan on towing heavy loads.

[KARNUT]

I'm not against the V6 I own two, santafe and Genesis they run very good. In the trucks case you can get the 5.3 across the board unlike the 6.2, there is no reason to buy the V6 unless you got a killer deal on one. The gas mileage deference very minor.

[16LT4]

I would never buy a full size truck with a 6 cylinder, unless it was either 1) Diesel or 2) nearly-immortal Ford 300 ci I-6 (they put those in F-350s, so that says a lot). In my opinion, if you need the capability of a full-size truck and are shelling out the money for one, why castrate yourself right out of the starting gate? While not apples-apples, I did test drive a Ram CC 4x4 with the Pentastar, and that truck was somewhat gutless. Don't put much attention on the HP numbers; torque numbers, and more importantly at what RPM they occur, is far more important in a truck. If a full-size V6 is enough to do the job, I'd just get a Colorado Duramax and have an easier-to-drive truck with better towing AND far better fuel economy. Personally, I'd appreciate more power in my '17 DCSB 5.3; yeah the engine is 360+ HP, but the LSx/LT motors have to rev more to get the torque than the old SBC 350 did, and modern trucks are far heavier than the old '80s trucks were.

[amxguy1970]

So just because you have an inferiority complex with a V6 doesn't mean others do, many many do buy trucks and have no need for a full size. Currently it's all an alpha status with them and they will never tow more than a utility trailer or a few bags of mulch in the bed. Why do you think box checker versions are sold in such high numbers, because they need the capacity? No need for a big V8 then if that is all you are doing or only picking the kids up from practice.

 

Did the new trucks get a power bump? Did not know they are over 360 hp now...

 

So you want more power yet an 80's style V8 power curve? It will be slower and less capable than they are now, even with them being heavier; there is a reason motors have changed this way. Go look at a dyno chart betwen the two, you aren't going to notice peak torque 1,000 rpm sooner especially when the torque curves are much flatter these days. Back then it would peak and fall off early, now it remains flat so you have torque both lower and higher in the rpm range.

 

Tyler

[Donstar]

I would never buy a full size truck with a 6 cylinder, unless it was either 1) Diesel or 2) nearly-immortal Ford 300 ci I-6 (they put those in F-350s, so that says a lot). In my opinion, if you need the capability of a full-size truck and are shelling out the money for one, why castrate yourself right out of the starting gate? While not apples-apples, I did test drive a Ram CC 4x4 with the Pentastar, and that truck was somewhat gutless. Don't put much attention on the HP numbers; torque numbers, and more importantly at what RPM they occur, is far more important in a truck. If a full-size V6 is enough to do the job, I'd just get a Colorado Duramax and have an easier-to-drive truck with better towing AND far better fuel economy. Personally, I'd appreciate more power in my '17 DCSB 5.3; yeah the engine is 360+ HP, but the LSx/LT motors have to rev more to get the torque than the old SBC 350 did, and modern trucks are far heavier than the old '80s trucks were.

Yes I agree with the comment about the 300 cu in 6. I owned five trucks with this motor! The new 4.3 V6 is a much stronger, technologically advanced and more efficient engine. Your comment about "modern" trucks being far heavier than 80's trucks catches me by surprise. Logic would tell me the new ones are lighter! The real comparison comes from everyday use and I have yet to find myself in a situation where the 300 or the 4.3 couldn't handle the task! I don't feel castrated driving a truck with a V6. The only way anyone will know is if I tell them!

[WV GMC]

Just 2 things I would consider, the mileage difference is very small between the 4.3 and the 5.3. Most important would be the resale value of the 6 vs. the 8, most people looking for a used truck will want the 5.3 and trade values will reflect that. If you plan on driving it for 5 years or more, the small savings on fuel may even out to the diminished resale value.

[Donstar]

I posted this picture several months ago as I am pretty proud of my truck!

 

[diyer2]

Like all things in life this is a personal choice. Me, V 8.

[Dale_K]

The 5.3 is a particularly sweet motor. The smoothness and general sense of luxury amaze me every time I drive my truck. I agree with the post that says to drive both back to back.