4.3 V6 gone in 2019?

[mookdoc6]

1 hour ago, Donstar said:

FYI The 4.3 of today and yesterday are the same in number only. I frequently have a full load of passengers c/w belongings and travel the hills.  I never wished for a V8 since owning this '15.  I once wished I hadn't stopped at a no-name gas station but would have had the same issue with a V8!

I get all that and probably most do too!  The problem is were just not biting the 600.00-800.00 dollar difference?  It's a HARD, TOUGH SELL!

[KARNUT]

I’m 62. I had uncles, my dad and cousins who owned everything from Shelby, to Chevelle, GTO, etc. I had a few of those myself. Back in the late 90s I worked a deal that got me a 87 GNX with a swap with my Z28 and cash. The Buick was twice as quick. I had it for the weekend to decide. Couldn’t do it, between the turbo noise and the lame sound out the exhaust negated how fast it was. The Z made the right sounds. The 5.3 is the best GM puts out in my opinion. Near or at 6 cylinder mileage, an E-85 option that puts it within 40 Hp of the 6.2. Amazing. I have a fast 4, and 6 not the right noise. The only thing I hate about it is cylinder deactivation, wrong noise. And a longevity killer. The 4.3 is going away for good reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mookdoc6]

1 hour ago, KARNUT said:

I’m 62. I had uncles, my dad and cousins who owned everything from Shelby, to Chevelle, GTO, etc. I had a few of those myself. Back in the late 90s I worked a deal that got me a 87 GNX with a swap with my Z28 and cash. The Buick was twice as quick. I had it for the weekend to decide. Couldn’t do it, between the turbo noise and the lame sound out the exhaust negated how fast it was. The Z made the right sounds. The 5.3 is the best GM puts out in my opinion. Near or at 6 cylinder mileage, an E-85 option that puts it within 40 Hp of the 6.2. Amazing. I have a fast 4, and 6 not the right noise. The only thing I hate about it is cylinder deactivation, wrong noise. And a longevity killer. The 4.3 is going away for good reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, Inherently smoother/better balanced...The goofy AFM alogo's on 6cyl are way more complex too resulting in smaller spectrum of operating range to even get it to function properly with AFM.....You got it when it's all said in done GM Bumps up 5.3 to about 400hp/420tq and nets 2 mgs better on HWY....with the 5.3/10speed.  Heck give me the 5.3 with mild hybrid I will take it probably over the 6.2L if I get 25-26mpg's Hwy.......Not even hunting for V-6 now or in the future...

[KARNUT]

Yup, Inherently smoother/better balanced...The goofy AFM alogo's on 6cyl are way more complex too resulting in smaller spectrum of operating range to even get it to function properly with AFM.....You got it when it's all said in done GM Bumps up 5.3 to about 400hp/420tq and nets 2 mgs better on HWY....with the 5.3/10speed.  Heck give me the 5.3 with mild hybrid I will take it probably over the 6.2L if I get 25-26mpg's Hwy.......Not even hunting for V-6 now or in the future...

My AFM in my 14 usually only came on going down hill at highway speeds 72 MPH. When I started uphill or level out it sounded like my truck was farting till I tuned it out. Never really had measurable gas mileage gains with it. If we were still in the double nickel days maybe it would have worked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pickmeup]

Are they replacing it with a 4 cylinder turbo anyone hear ?

 

[Donstar]

1 hour ago, KARNUT said:

My AFM in my 14 usually only came on going down hill at highway speeds 72 MPH. When I started uphill or level out it sounded like my truck was farting till I tuned it out. Never really had measurable gas mileage gains with it. If we were still in the double nickel days maybe it would have worked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this the good reason you speak about for the 4.3 going out?  If it is then I understand your disappointment.  My '09 5.3 needed oil added at every fill-up for the first two years which I found discouraging.  However, I also understand that such experiences aren't universal.  I believe the 5.3 is a great motor and don't judge it on my one experience.  The 4.3 is also a great engine and AFM functions seamlessly in my truck.  If it didn't,  I'd do the same as I did with my 5.3, and that is keep taking it back until it was fixed properly.  There is no question that the 5.3 and 6.2 are more powerful engines than the 4.3.  The 8' and 6'6" boxes are larger and have greater capacity than the 5'8" box....   We are on this Forum because most of us own and are proud of our GM vehicles.  Some configurations are more appealing to us than others, but I see the merit in all of them and don't want to see this engine choice taken away.    

[KARNUT]

Is this the good reason you speak about for the 4.3 going out?  If it is then I understand your disappointment.  My '09 5.3 needed oil added at every fill-up for the first two years which I found discouraging.  However, I also understand that such experiences aren't universal.  I believe the 5.3 is a great motor and don't judge it on my one experience.  The 4.3 is also a great engine and AFM functions seamlessly in my truck.  If it didn't,  I'd do the same as I did with my 5.3, and that is keep taking it back until it was fixed properly.  There is no question that the 5.3 and 6.2 are more powerful engines than the 4.3.  The 8' and 6'6" boxes are larger and have greater capacity than the 5'8" box....   We are on this Forum because most of us own and are proud of our GM vehicles.  Some configurations are more appealing to us than others, but I see the merit in all of them and don't want to see this engine choice taken away.    

I’m proud of this engine it’s 27 years old with one refresh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Donstar]

14 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

I’m proud of this engine it’s 27 years old with one refresh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

350? Turbo?

[KARNUT]

350? Turbo?

Stroked with a Whipple among other goodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grumpy Bear]

1955 - 1959 Chevy 1/2 tons curb weight was an average 2475 lbs. About half what the RCSB K2RC weighs. Imagine the 285 hp. 4.3 Ecotec3 in that.  8.7 lb./hp. Well past muscle car numbers. It isn't the motor that's the problem. 

 

GM goes on and on about how much they have lightened the 2019. Whoooooo. Still a pig. Naturally these motors have to get more and more efficient. People keep demanding the impossible from the improbable and so do the law makers. 

 

This 4.3 in a 55 Cameo is a 35-40 mpg truck without ever cleaning up a body line. 

[i82much]

17 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

1955 - 1959 Chevy 1/2 tons curb weight was an average 2475 lbs. About half what the RCSB K2RC weighs. Imagine the 285 hp. 4.3 Ecotec3 in that.  8.7 lb./hp. Well past muscle car numbers. It isn't the motor that's the problem. 

 

GM goes on and on about how much they have lightened the 2019. Whoooooo. Still a pig. Naturally these motors have to get more and more efficient. People keep demanding the impossible from the improbable and so do the law makers. 

 

This 4.3 in a 55 Cameo is a 35-40 mpg truck without ever cleaning up a body line. 

No chance you will get 35 MPG highway out of a 55 pickup.  Maybe, just maybe, you could see 35 mpg if you crept along at 45 mph on a back country road on summer gas and low rolling resistance tires with an overdrive.  But at highway speeds, aerodynamics are the primary fuel economy factor and any new truck is going to be far more aerodynamic than a 1955.  

[Donstar]

27 minutes ago, i82much said:

No chance you will get 35 MPG highway out of a 55 pickup.  Maybe, just maybe, you could see 35 mpg if you crept along at 45 mph on a back country road on summer gas and low rolling resistance tires with an overdrive.  But at highway speeds, aerodynamics are the primary fuel economy factor and any new truck is going to be far more aerodynamic than a 1955.  

Maybe, but it sure would be a lot of fun trying!  The aerodynamics of the 55 with its rounded features couldn't be much worse than the bricks we now drive!

[Donstar]

Weight, aerodynamics, gear-ratios, transmissions, wheels and driving habits all impact performance.  Heavy emphasis is placed on horsepower because it is a number we can easily compare.  A  relevant example of this is how my V6 truck is rated to pull 1000 lbs more than an equivalent truck with a 5.3  V8 and a standard 3.08 gear ratio.  Some will pay more for 70 extra horsepower that does less.  Arguably, the V8 sounds nicer when you're standing outside!

[i82much]

55 minutes ago, Donstar said:

Maybe, but it sure would be a lot of fun trying!  The aerodynamics of the 55 with its rounded features couldn't be much worse than the bricks we now drive!

Yeah, I agree it would be fun.  Generally, weight affects city driving more and aerodynamics affect highway driving.  So that light old Chevy truck would probably do way better than a new one in the city, but aero would kill it on the highway.  

 

Think about it this way.  It takes a certain amount of work to accelerate a mass, and the amount of work is proportional to the mass.  That's basically city driving - constantly having to accelerate your vehicle.  Now think highway - you aren't accelerating much, so in a frictionless environment you would need to do zero work to stay at 70 mph.  But in reality, you have frictional losses, particularly aero because it goes up with the square of velocity.  

[Grumpy Bear]

55 minutes ago, i82much said:

Yeah, I agree it would be fun.  Generally, weight affects city driving more and aerodynamics affect highway driving.  So that light old Chevy truck would probably do way better than a new one in the city, but aero would kill it on the highway.  

 

Think about it this way.  It takes a certain amount of work to accelerate a mass, and the amount of work is proportional to the mass.  That's basically city driving - constantly having to accelerate your vehicle.  Now think highway - you aren't accelerating much, so in a frictionless environment you would need to do zero work to stay at 70 mph.  But in reality, you have frictional losses, particularly aero because it goes up with the square of velocity.  

There is more to wind resistance than a low Cd.

Frontal area! And the news ones have a bunch of that. Allot more than the 40's/50's trucks. 

 

Mass. Unless your rural road is kitchen table flat you get to haul that double bulk up an down hills. And as much as we would like to believe; the down side of a hill does not recoup the entire energy used climbing it. Not even close. 

 

Stated dozens of times. I already get 26.4 mpg life time average with the billboard tank I drive. I have no problem visualizing 30+.

 

22 hours ago, KARNUT said:

  22 hours ago, mookdoc6 said:

Yup, Inherently smoother/better balanced......Not even hunting for V-6 now or in the future...

If smooth is your goal then don't step past the I-6/ Perfect balance through the 4th harmonic with so little disturbance in the next two even good instruments have a tough time noting it. Detroit gave up (sans Jeep) due to rpm limits with power was gained in such ways. Now that the limits are once again under 6,000 rpm everyone in playing in the sixer's house now. Yea kids, an inline 6 is smoother than a V-8. 

 

Ya'll speak of these mini V-8's like they were 454's/460's. 5 liters in a six inline has been done. Even the 6.2 is a mouse motor.