4.3 V6 gone in 2019?

f8l vnm · June 2, 2018

On 5/20/2018 at 4:22 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

Know what happens when you squeeze a pimple real hard?

YIKES!!!! That's over 2 lb./ft. per cube!! 1.88 HP per cube. Offenhauser anyone? Belongs in a sprint midget not a truck.

The new 2.7 is a truck based motor that gm built specific for truck applications. It will be a strong engine. , it ain’t no Malibu 2.0 turbo if you know what I mean. 348lb of torque before before 2000 rpm is impressive, and it keeps this impressive torque through out the band. You know a tune will easily out thing thing at 400/400 with forged internals. It’s not for everyone but something tells me it will fit in nicely when it come to sales. And it’s anothef option which we all like. Love the midget comment though. ??

michigan2500hd · June 2, 2018

Maybe I'm becoming jaded and as much as I've been a Chevy guy all my life I'm sure GM will screw it with multiple issues that will never get a real fix. Just a bunch of reprograms and flushes and " it's operating as intended"

Donstar · June 2, 2018

10 hours ago, michigan2500hd said:

Maybe I'm becoming jaded and as much as I've been a Chevy guy all my life I'm sure GM will screw it with multiple issues that will never get a real fix. Just a bunch of reprograms and flushes and " it's operating as intended"

If it wasn't for this forum, I'd have no reason to worry. There is often a concentration of similar complaints here that don't represent the majority of our experiences. I've owned several variations of new GM powertrains and they all performed well. If they didn't, GM fixed them free of charge. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a truck with this 4cyl engine. People demand smaller and more powerful electronics and I give the same enthusiasm to engine development.

f8l vnm · June 2, 2018

1 hour ago, Donstar said:

If it wasn't for this forum, I'd have no reason to worry. There is often a concentration of similar complaints here that don't represent the majority of our experiences. I've owned several variations of new GM powertrains and they all performed well. If they didn't, GM fixed them free of charge. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a truck with this 4cyl engine. People demand smaller and more powerful electronics and I give the same enthusiasm to engine development.

Great points sir

DONWT15 · June 2, 2018

1 hour ago, Donstar said:

If it wasn't for this forum, I'd have no reason to worry. There is often a concentration of similar complaints here that don't represent the majority of our experiences. I've owned several variations of new GM powertrains and they all performed well. If they didn't, GM fixed them free of charge. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a truck with this 4cyl engine. People demand smaller and more powerful electronics and I give the same enthusiasm to engine development.

I would hesitate, but I do want to try one. Like the idea alot, especially the low rpm power band.

One concern is the history of that inline 6 they developed for the first generation Colorado, Canyon, Trail Blazer etc.

It seemed to fade away without a wimper. Never heard a good explanation for that.

michigan2500hd · June 2, 2018

1 hour ago, DONWT15 said:

I would hesitate, but I do want to try one. Like the idea alot, especially the low rpm power band.

One concern is the history of that inline 6 they developed for the first generation Colorado, Canyon, Trail Blazer etc.

It seemed to fade away without a wimper. Never heard a good explanation for that.

I heard it was because of emissions that the 4.2 I- 6 went by the wayside. It was a great engine with usable power and longevity.

MikeNH · June 2, 2018

It was the size that killed it. GM had nothing else that could accommodate the I6. Too bad cause the engine offered awesome power levels for its size and it's a good motor. Two of the folks at work have Trailblazers with over 200k.

DONWT15 · June 2, 2018

2 hours ago, MikeNH said:

It was the size that killed it.

That makes sense. Engine compartments are getting a lot smaller. Not sure it would fit under the hood of my Silverado front to back. Good engine though.

shift_grind · June 3, 2018

10 hours ago, michigan2500hd said:

I heard it was because of emissions that the 4.2 I- 6 went by the wayside. It was a great engine with usable power and longevity.

My mom bought a 2003 Bravada new that now has 270k on it and still drives great. That seemed like a good engine, but I don't know much about them.

I wonder if this 4 cylinder takes off if they will offer a inline 5 or 6 again.

michigan2500hd · June 3, 2018

I bought a lightly used 2002 Trailblazer LTZ 4x4 a few months after they came out and at the time wasn't impressed with it. No locking rear axle, wimpy sounding exhaust, sat low, etc. But after having it awhile realized it was well engineered vehicle. At the time I questioned why they would use a straight six and not a v-6. I pictured the v6 being more of a performance engine and the straight six more of a low tech, less expensive to produce engine.

Now I wish they had kept producing it. I'd have one in a short bed, reg. cab. Bet it would do just fine.

HondaHawkGT · June 3, 2018

On 6/1/2018 at 10:04 PM, michigan2500hd said:

Maybe I'm becoming jaded and as much as I've been a Chevy guy all my life I'm sure GM will screw it with multiple issues that will never get a real fix. Just a bunch of reprograms and flushes and " it's operating as intended"

That's pretty much the scenario playing out with every manufacturer today as everyone of them scrambles to stay ahead of CAFE requirements. I can't think of a single manufacturer that doesn't have some kind of engine or transmission issue right now.

DONWT15 · June 3, 2018

This from Wikipedia on the Atlas engine platform:

LL8[edit]

LL8

Overview
Also called	Vortec 4200
Production	2002-2009
Layout
Configuration	straight-6
Displacement	4,160 cc (254 cu in)
Cylinder bore	93 mm (3.7 in)
Piston stroke	102 mm (4.0 in)
Output
Power output	270–291 hp (201–217 kW)
Torque output	275–277 lb⋅ft (373–376 N⋅m)

The LL8 (or Vortec 4200), is a straight-6 gasoline engine. It was the first Atlas engine, and was introduced in 2002 for the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy, and Oldsmobile Bravada, the engine is also in use in the Buick Rainier, Saab 9-7, and the Isuzu Ascender. It displaces 4,160 cc (254 cu in),^[2] with a 93 mm (3.7 in) bore and 102 mm (4.0 in) stroke. It has four valves per cylinder, utilizes dual-overhead cams (DOHC) design, and features variable valve timing on the exhaust cam, a first for GM Inline engines. When introduced, this engine's power was 270 hp (200 kW) at 6000 rpm and torque was 275 lb⋅ft (373 N⋅m) at 3600 rpm. 2003 saw a slight bump in power to 275 hp (205 kW), while torque was unchanged. For 2006, power was increased to 291 hp (217 kW) at 6000 rpm and torque to 277 lb⋅ft (376 N⋅m)) at 4800 rpm with the addition of a MAF and a complete internal redesign of the engine; however due to the new SAE rating procedures ratings can vary slightly between years. Engine redline is 6300 rpm. The LL8 was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2002 through 2005 and was the basis for all the other Atlas engines. With the closing of the Moraine, Ohioplant and the termination of the GMT360 platform (Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy, etc.) the production of the LL8 was also terminated.^[3]

Colossus · June 3, 2018

41 minutes ago, HondaHawkGT said:

That's pretty much the scenario playing out with every manufacturer today as everyone of them scrambles to stay ahead of CAFE requirements. I can't think of a single manufacturer that doesn't have some kind of engine or transmission issue right now.

This.

Colossus · June 3, 2018

And the 4.2 was a very fine engine. Also yes inline engines are a bit tricky when it comes to emissions. They could meet the 90s and early 2000s standards ok, but to get them to where they need to meet modern day standards for gasoline emissions is extremely hard. I don't know how true that is though

michigan2500hd · June 3, 2018

That's pretty much the scenario playing out with every manufacturer today as everyone of them scrambles to stay ahead of CAFE requirements. I can't think of a single manufacturer that doesn't have some kind of engine or transmission issue right now.

I think that's part of it. Although this doesn't have to be an issue. There is power when united. If every manufacturer would collectively reject these ridiculous requirements this Cafe crap would be scaled back. I think it's still needed to some degree.. However most people are " sheeple" and it doesn't even cross their mind to think independently from what they see done or are told.
Sorry this is a major hot spot with me and I'm getting off course. Just bugs me that this crap is ruining our vehicles.. or enjoyment thereof.
I expect a couple of quirks with every vehicle but a example..
My truck- 2015 so it's not old
1. Common issue -radiator replacement
2. Transfer case issue before I bought it.
3. No start issue before I bought it
4. Back up camera failure
5. Extreme and multiple transmission issues
6. Vibration issues
7.etc.
Some people say if you listen to the forums you mostly hear about the negatives however I take care of my vehicles and I seem to have experienced many of the issues I see on here.
GM needs to slow down a bit and focus on quality.. Not one upping Ford and Dodge,etc.
Shoot I would buy a 1990 1500 if it was "new" over the newer trucks.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk