Why the 4.3 Motors are so weak

[WittyManOfStyle]

Does anyone out there know why the 4.3 Vortec is actually very weak for a V6?

Its strange that there are 4 bangers in imports that have as much or more HP than the 4.3 AND get better milage.

Its also strange that many V6 or I6 motors out there have way more HP than the 4.3 AND get better milage.

A 262 4.3 should not be 190 stock.

A 4.3 should be making 225 easy with good milage. And considering that S10's weigh 3100-3300, the power should be a given. I mean you have 3.5 Altima V6 making 270 HP in a 3200 lb 4 door grocery getter for God sakes! And whats up with the Inline 5 in the Colorado making 245 HP? Hell, the 4 cylinder in the Colorado generates 185 horsepower at 5600 rpm! I mean seriously, WHERE is the power hiding in these 4.3's?

Is it the low RPM cam that is the problem?

OR

Is it the cheap Intake Manifold?

Could it be the pistons?

What exactly is the problem with these motors not putting out good STOCK number?

Someone out there must surely be educated enough to have the answer to this question that has never seemed to be answered, I for one have always wondered why the 4.3 is so weak for such a large V6.

[AZ2001dime]

this is coming from a very unintellegent person compared to many others on this site but i remember reading in a article comparing the s10 v6 to others and the s10 has less power according to them because chevy has not re designed or changed the style of the motor in a long time and and never incorporated in newer technology.....it makes since if thats the case but i have no way of proving it...so just a idea

[jumpin jack]

what difference does horsepower make in a truck? the s10 is a truck with a trucks engine. the 4.3 puts down a LOT of torque and thats what counts when you have a truck. the 4.3 makes around 250tq and thats a lot from any v6. so for an old school 2 valve per cylinder engine thats not too bad

[WittyManOfStyle]

Quote: Originally Posted by jumpin jack

what difference does horsepower make in a truck? the s10 is a truck with a trucks engine. the 4.3 puts down a LOT of torque and thats what counts when you have a truck. the 4.3 makes around 250tq and thats a lot from any v6. so for an old school 2 valve per cylinder engine thats not too bad

Did you even read my entire post?

The I5 in the Colorado puts down equal torque and MUCH MORE horsepower than the 4.3, so PERHAPS horsepower does make a difference in a truck, ya think?

The I4 in the Colorado shoots out 185 HP. More than the stock S10 4.3 with 180. OUCH.

Your obviously not concerned about power, so why bother posting a reply like that?

[ktm841]

how does equal torque and more horsepower lead you to think that horsepower makes 'a difference in a truck' ... it has a lot of torkey so settle down

[denpol]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

Did you even read my entire post?

The I5 in the Colorado puts down equal torque and MUCH MORE horsepower than the 4.3, so PERHAPS horsepower does make a difference in a truck, ya think?

The I4 in the Colorado shoots out 185 HP. More than the stock S10 4.3 with 180. OUCH.

Your obviously not concerned about power, so why bother posting a reply like that?

You've given your own answers already!

Look at the definition of hp....... it's torque over a certain period of time!
And yes the engine is old fashioned, has heavier internals ( reciprocating weight that robs hp )worse breathing.
It's a 350 minus 2 cyl, how about complaining about those, they got weaker series as well! And they have improved ( alu )versions later. So stop wondering and start reading about the latest technology than there's not so much to worry about

[swamp_rat]

stfu and supercharge it

[Darker Shadow]

Though I can't explain why 4.3L are weak (this question I have wondered too... I always wondered if the even fire put a dent in it though) I do have to comment on the weight - if your truck weighs between 3100 - 3300 lbs, I'd be happy. Mine crossed the scales at 4180lbs on a Tractor Trailer scale with not but 3 tonneau cover rails on it. I'm pretty sure that puts a pretty dent in the gas mileage at least.

[roadlet_411]

peak torque at something like 2800 rpm? that's neat

[poconojoe]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

Did you even read my entire post?

The I5 in the Colorado puts down equal torque and MUCH MORE horsepower than the 4.3, so PERHAPS horsepower does make a difference in a truck, ya think?

The I4 in the Colorado shoots out 185 HP. More than the stock S10 4.3 with 180. OUCH.

Your obviously not concerned about power, so why bother posting a reply like that?

I've read your entire post and I think you come off with an aditude and even if somebody took the time to explain it to you, they've wasted their time on an idiot. Truck need torque a lot more then HP. If you don't think so, how come a Cummins 3208 only has 250HP and it was put in a lot of trucks even some tractor trailers? If you want more HP from a 4.3, go buy an old 4.3 Busch motor, they made 600 to 750HP. By they way, I do know the answer to your question, but you're not worth wasting the bandwidth to answer it, even if i used all recycled electrons.

PS If you want to talk down to people who, state their options, why did you post in the first place.
PSS I think this thread should be closed, he got the answer, he was too stupid to realize it.

[95 S_Trucker]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

The I5 in the Colorado puts down equal torque and MUCH MORE horsepower than the 4.3, so PERHAPS horsepower does make a difference in a truck, ya think?

The I4 in the Colorado shoots out 185 HP. More than the stock S10 4.3 with 180. OUCH.

Those engines (and also the 4.2 in the trailblazer) have dual over head cams and 4 valves per cylinder. That makes a huge difference in power and torque.

Inline engines produce more torque than V engines with the same displacement, number of cylinders, and the same technology(fuel system, # of valves, etc)


Thats why you THINK our engines are weak, and they aren't really that weak.

[xtreme03blzr]

considering how old the 4.3 actually is when looking at the colorado and/or trailblazer, or nissans.

[Bruizer]

I think i read somewhere that the Blazers and S10s overseas actaully have around 220 hp. Could be do to restrictions and regulations. Or i might have dreamed that but i thought someone from Europe said that once on this forum or some other ones a while back.

[WittyManOfStyle]

Ok so this is basically an older motor that never got much attention throughout the years, I pretty much got that.

What bothers me is why the newer truck motors in the Colorado's have equal HP and TQ, instead of higher TQ. 245 HP and 245 TQ is dead even. And these numbers are at much higher RPM's than the 4.3's. Or what bothers me even more, is why GM just completely said "to hell with the 4.3" and quit making them. They could have EASILY gotten much more power outta them, even more power than the Inline 5 and STILL got good milage.

Thats FINE with me.

However, there HAS to be a restriction in these 4.3's, that if upgraded, would bring it up to modern standards, without giving it a rough idle or poor milage. THAT'S what I wanna know! Can somebody help me out with that?

[MINTSICK]

Get over it, you're comparing a motor that has been around for decades thats based on a motor thats been around for a few more decades to relatively brand new motors. Torque is the name of the game in trucks and the 4.3 has excellent torque. You also answered your own question yet again, it's an older design that didn't get much attention.

Not sure what you consider to be poor fuel mileage, but my truck consistently holds down 20mpg mixed driving and that is with a big cam, I'm happy with 20mpg but maybe you don't come anywhere near that number? Rough idle, again maybe there is something wrong with your truck because when mine was stock it idled smooth.

[Brad99Dime]

Hmmm, well im happy with my 4.3 i know that for sure. And i only have a few bolt on's and when ever some idiot pulls up next to me i dont loose that often. But whatever. I think they are great engines!!!!

[picksnstrings]

The Vortec 4300 is a 90° V6 truck engine, replacing the Chevrolet 250 in light trucks and 200/229 90 degree V6s in passenger cars (the 200 and 229 were known as the V6-90, both were shortened versions of the Small Block Chevrolet). It is based on the 350 in³ (5.7 L) Chevrolet small-block V8. The engine first appeared in 1985 with the throttle-body injected LB4 in passenger cars (light trucks and vans had carburetors until 1987). In 1991, the limited-edition GMC Syclone featured a 280 hp and 360 ft·lbf turbocharged/intercooled LB4 with the first use of multi-port fuel injection on a Vortec V6. The central-port injected L35 (Vin 'W') debuted in 1992, with better breathing for 200 hp (150 kW). Another CPI engine, the LF6, joined the rest in 1996, while the LB4 was retired after 1998. In 2002, GM introduced a new multi-port injected LU3 engine, and a LG3 variant appeared soon after. This engines origins date back to 1955, when the original Chevy small-block V-8 was introduced.
All Vortec 4300s use a cast iron block and heads and 101.60 mm (4.000") bore and 88.39 mm (3.48") stroke (bore and stroke dimensions the same as a 350). Connecting rods still measure 5.7" although the rod journal diameter is 2.25". They are OHV engines with two valves per cylinder and are produced in Tonawanda, New York and Romulus, Michigan. Power output of the new LU3/LG3 engines is 180-200 hp (134-150 kW) and 245-260 ft·lbf (332-353 N·m). (thanks wikipedia)



so ya see, the 4.3 can't be compared to newer motors. this is old technology and it's like comparing apples and oranges.

[firedog]

The limiting factors are the fuel sytem limits you to about 250-275hp. After that the split pin crank limits you to about 400hp. If you beat these things you can pretty much do whatever a SBC can X's 0.75%.

Beat the fuel system with a Edelbrock 2114 conversion. search

Beat the crank with a Scat or Moldex billet one. search

Your MPG questions is usually a gearing issue and/or heavy foot problem.

A C4 Corvette with a 3.23 rear gear and a ZF 6 speed manual mated to an LT1 usually knocked down about 25-26 mpg in a sleeker body not a brick on wheels. The LT1/4 were the pinnacle of SBC factory performance with 300hp and 350 ftlbs. 300 x .75 = 225 350 x .75 = 262. The 4.3L X motor is rated at 195hp and 250 ftlbs. Not too far off.

[4.3ramjet]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

Ok so this is basically an older motor that never got much attention throughout the years, I pretty much got that.

What bothers me is why the newer truck motors in the Colorado's have equal HP and TQ, instead of higher TQ. 245 HP and 245 TQ is dead even. And these numbers are at much higher RPM's than the 4.3's. Or what bothers me even more, is why GM just completely said "to hell with the 4.3" and quit making them. They could have EASILY gotten much more power outta them, even more power than the Inline 5 and STILL got good milage.

Thats FINE with me.

However, there HAS to be a restriction in these 4.3's, that if upgraded, would bring it up to modern standards, without giving it a rough idle or poor milage. THAT'S what I wanna know! Can somebody help me out with that?

if you do not like the 4.3 maybe you should get something diffrent and join another forum

[s10ls]

i think these motors just need a little motivation in the form of compressed air lol

i have a new respect for 4.3's and what they can handle in stock trim, i beat the hell out of mine with high boost and it just keeps taking it. maybe the numbers they are rated at from the factory are low compared to todays standards, but it can handle some abuse thats for sure

[WittyManOfStyle]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4.3ramjet

if you do not like the 4.3 maybe you should get something diffrent and join another forum

Please guys don't misunderstand me. I love the 4.3.

The 6.0, and the 7.0 motors in the Vette's are still old-style pushrod motors, and gets excellent MPG, with 400-505 HP to boot.

Old style push-rod motor is exactly what the 4.3 is. That's why I keep saying that there has to be a way to get this motor around 280 Stock if GM would've only tried harder. I'm sure they would've found a great way to keep the MPG within' the 20-25 range as well.

Hell, I get 25 MPG Highway, I love it.

A good powerful 4.3 with a larger cam and intake manifold should easily make 250 HP without sacrificing idle and too much MPG.

I would hope so anyway. Like I said, 6.0 and 7.0 are pushrod motors kickin' ass in the HP numbers with good milage.

[rob8284]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

Ok so this is basically an older motor that never got much attention throughout the years, I pretty much got that.

What bothers me is why the newer truck motors in the Colorado's have equal HP and TQ, instead of higher TQ. 245 HP and 245 TQ is dead even. And these numbers are at much higher RPM's than the 4.3's. Or what bothers me even more, is why GM just completely said "to hell with the 4.3" and quit making them. They could have EASILY gotten much more power outta them, even more power than the Inline 5 and STILL got good milage.

Thats FINE with me.

However, there HAS to be a restriction in these 4.3's, that if upgraded, would bring it up to modern standards, without giving it a rough idle or poor milage. THAT'S what I wanna know! Can somebody help me out with that?

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

Please guys don't misunderstand me. I love the 4.3.

The 6.0, and the 7.0 motors in the Vette's are still old-style pushrod motors, and gets excellent MPG, with 400-505 HP to boot.

Old style push-rod motor is exactly what the 4.3 is. That's why I keep saying that there has to be a way to get this motor around 280 Stock if GM would've only tried harder. I'm sure they would've found a great way to keep the MPG within' the 20-25 range as well.

Hell, I get 25 MPG Highway, I love it.

A good powerful 4.3 with a larger cam and intake manifold should easily make 250 HP without sacrificing idle and too much MPG.

I would hope so anyway. Like I said, 6.0 and 7.0 are pushrod motors kickin' ass in the HP numbers with good milage.

After reading these two posts, you obviously do not understand engines very well. You keep comparing older engines and their designs to newer ones. Again, the 6.0L and 7.0L engines, even though they are still pushrod engines, they are a completely different and new design. They use aluminum heads, way better flowing intake manifolds, and so much more. GM's new 427 SB is a completely different animal which is designed for power, so that's definitely comparing apples to oranges.

[S10Wheels]

Quote: Originally Posted by jumpin jack

what difference does horsepower make in a truck? the s10 is a truck with a trucks engine. the 4.3 puts down a LOT of torque and thats what counts when you have a truck. the 4.3 makes around 250tq and thats a lot from any v6. so for an old school 2 valve per cylinder engine thats not too bad

Yea!! I agree, Look at the other small trucks, namely the Nissan, Toyota and Mazda (Ranger). Compare the specs. for their V6 's, they may put out a little more HP & maybe even more torque, 5 or 10 lbs. But at what RPM's? How "real world" useable are those numbers? Theres a good chance, that same V6 is used in a car too, it's not a truck motor. Are you going to go down the road pulling a boat turning 5k-6k RPM's to get the torque you need?

When was that alu., OHC, V6 in the new small jap truck designed-6 months ago? And not one import with a gas V6 really does better on MPG's (stock trucks)(driving conservatly).
Did you ever look under the hood on an import? How much of a job would it be to change a belt? water pump, Alt. plugs, wires, etc. And how much do parts cost? & look over & around the truck itself, compare, the "S" truck is built like a brick s*@$t house campared to the jap trucks. And did you ever do any electrical work on one? How'bout get custom parts or even lower it?
And the last point, their expensive! I'm on my second S-10, and I do like a lot of imports, but the "S" trucks have them beat in every catagory.
(Excuse my spelling)

[1fast4by]

Horsepower doesnt mean shit. Thats all there is to it. Its just a freaking mathmatical formula (tq x rpm at which tq is reached / 5252)

HP sells cars Tq wins races, tows trailers, gets the fvcking job done.


My 4.3 has been very good to me, I have no complaints other than maybe gas milage, and hell I cant really complain h/c/i/e/n20/tune it gets bad

[WittyManOfStyle]

Quote: Originally Posted by 1fast4by

Horsepower doesnt mean shit. Thats all there is to it. Its just a freaking mathmatical formula (tq x rpm at which tq is reached / 5252)

HP sells cars Tq wins races, tows trailers, gets the fvcking job done.


My 4.3 has been very good to me, I have no complaints other than maybe gas milage, and hell I cant really complain h/c/i/e/n20/tune it gets bad

Your right. I'm gonna have to agree with you on this.

For example.

I raced a supercharged Ford Focus SVT, that came stock with 220 HP at 7000 RPM's and 170 TQ at 5500 RPMs, Well, from a rolling 20 mph start, he pulls me. Keep in mind, these Focus cars weigh 2400 lbs.

But from a Dead Stop, I blow his doors off, even when he hits his best gear (3rd pulls freakin hard), I'm already finished with my run at 90 MPH and he's catching up fast.

Or another example..

I use to piss off my friend in his 2000 Eclipse GT, that had 205 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 205 foot-pounds of torque at 4,500 rpm. My truck was stock with only a crappy-ass flowmaster dual out and from a dead stop, I would eat him up 2-3 lengths every time, and he could never catch up even past 90 MPH, and I spun more than him.

So your theory about torque, is correct.

[1fast4by]

so what are you complaining about?

[meyers2211]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

Does anyone out there know why the 4.3 Vortec is actually very weak for a V6?

Its strange that there are 4 bangers in imports that have as much or more HP than the 4.3 AND get better milage.

Its also strange that many V6 or I6 motors out there have way more HP than the 4.3 AND get better milage.

A 262 4.3 should not be 190 stock.

A 4.3 should be making 225 easy with good milage. And considering that S10's weigh 3100-3300, the power should be a given. I mean you have 3.5 Altima V6 making 270 HP in a 3200 lb 4 door grocery getter for God sakes! And whats up with the Inline 5 in the Colorado making 245 HP? Hell, the 4 cylinder in the Colorado generates 185 horsepower at 5600 rpm! I mean seriously, WHERE is the power hiding in these 4.3's?

Is it the low RPM cam that is the problem?

OR

Is it the cheap Intake Manifold?

Could it be the pistons?

What exactly is the problem with these motors not putting out good STOCK number?

Someone out there must surely be educated enough to have the answer to this question that has never seemed to be answered, I for one have always wondered why the 4.3 is so weak for such a large V6.

'



Dude honestly i hate when ppl compare 4 cylinders imports to us. GM has had this 262CID v6 in the running forever. U are comparing a DOHC 4 valve which breathes significantly better than our Pushrod v6. THe 4.3l is olddddd technology by far. The mivec, vtec, vvti from toyota are far superior in their cam design for great gas mileage and torque, and when needed shifted to change cam specs so that they flow great and get those ponies. Even the new mustang has jumped on the wagon with their 3 valve motor.

Simply put the v6 is old technology, u wouldn't ask ur old pushrod 350 SBC of good efficiency and power compared to todays technology, so don't ask it from a 80's motor.

And for the record i spanked most 4 bangers, and still got a roaring 30mpg on the highway 4.3l 5spd with 3.08 open dif no exhaust and intake

[556mm]

eh my 4.3 is ok i guess. it has a lot of miles on it but it still gets me from point A to B. i still want a 5.7 though.

[J..D]

It's a simple answer, The 4.3 was ahead of the game at one time it went from 155hp and 235tg in 91 to 200hp and 260 tq in 92. But since 92 there has been no major gains in power GM just ignored this motor. Any one remember the ZZ4.3 that GM was supposed to make but canceled that's where the 4.3 would have been if it was upgraded like the rest of GM's motors.

[4.3Xtreme]

Quote: Originally Posted by 1fast4by

so what are you complaining about?

Just to hear the sound of his own voice?...

[556mm]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4.3Xtreme

Just to hear the sound of his own voice?...

is he talking to his computer?

[j894]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

...... WHERE is the power hiding in these 4.3's?

Its right where yours not looking. Your comparing engines only by Peak HP & torque numbers, you have to look at the entire RPM range to get the picture, not just Peak numbers. the 4.3 in these trucks is a workhorse truck engine, its made for low end power, not high revs, racing or going fast. The reason it has a low "hp" rating is because the power (torque) starts to dying off in the Upper RPM range, where most HP ratings are "calculated" (look up how HP is calculated & you might understand why). This is just how it is with the stock cam. If the 4.3 made peak torque at or near redline, or even near the 5k rpm range, it would have a much higher power rating. It would also move better because that would give it a wide range of power.

The marine 4.3s are rated for I believe 230hp, 270ft lbs stock. Because it cam & its whole setup is Made for a wide range of power & turning high RPM power....duh your in a boat.
http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpower...300_Marine.pdf

If you pay atten. in the 4.3 forum you will see that there are people who do cam swaps & have good results, just from making use of the wider "powerband" & topend

[ktm841]

gm uses pushrods just to mock everyone else ahah "look what we can do you suck..."

[WittyManOfStyle]

Quote: Originally Posted by j894

If you pay atten. in the 4.3 forum you will see that there are people who do cam swaps & have good results, just from making use of the wider "powerband" & topend

So basically its the cam for the most part one would assume?

I also thought it might be the intake manifold as well, or both.

Ether way, these motors are badass, and I believe if there was a company out there dedicated to it, we would see alot of killer set-ups like the guys out there with F-body's and J-body's.

4.3's need more attention.

Thanks for your input.

[96blazer]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

The 6.0, and the 7.0 motors in the Vette's are still old-style pushrod motors, and gets excellent MPG, with 400-505 HP to boot.

Old style push-rod motor is exactly what the 4.3 is. That's why I keep saying that there has to be a way to get this motor around 280 Stock if GM would've only tried harder. I'm sure they would've found a great way to keep the MPG within' the 20-25 range as well.
.

Sheesh, you're whole complaint have been be based on these types of stupid comparisions.

The size of an engine does not determin hp or tq. There are other factors to consider.

Yeah, GM did make the engines in the Vette much better than the ones in the S trucks, Why?
Because one is their flagship luxury sports car and the other is their cheapie small pick-up truck.

And there never was a big truck market before, never was a demand for high hp trucks when these trucks were made.

[jumpin jack]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

Your right. I'm gonna have to agree with you on this.

For example.

I raced a supercharged Ford Focus SVT, that came stock with 220 HP at 7000 RPM's and 170 TQ at 5500 RPMs, Well, from a rolling 20 mph start, he pulls me. Keep in mind, these Focus cars weigh 2400 lbs.

But from a Dead Stop, I blow his doors off, even when he hits his best gear (3rd pulls freakin hard), I'm already finished with my run at 90 MPH and he's catching up fast.

Or another example..

I use to piss off my friend in his 2000 Eclipse GT, that had 205 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 205 foot-pounds of torque at 4,500 rpm. My truck was stock with only a crappy-ass flowmaster dual out and from a dead stop, I would eat him up 2-3 lengths every time, and he could never catch up even past 90 MPH, and I spun more than him.

So your theory about torque, is correct.

bwhahahaha
2400lbs?? i think not, try 2750lbs. 220hp? stock? i don't think so, how bout 170hp

ps, the most torque any colorado ever had was 242lbs, and thats less than the late model 4.3s

[Crew Cab Sonoma]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

What bothers me is why the newer truck motors in the Colorado's have equal HP and TQ, instead of higher TQ. 245 HP and 245 TQ is dead even. And these numbers are at much higher RPM's than the 4.3's.

many of the engines you compare to the 4.3, produce their peak torque at considerably higher rpm than the 4.3 does. which means the truck has to be geared lower, or have a higher stall rate to the converter for auto trannys, in order to to get moving easily when loaded/ trailering...

Quote:

Or what bothers me even more, is why GM just completely said "to hell with the 4.3" and quit making them. They could have EASILY gotten much more power outta them, even more power than the Inline 5 and STILL got good milage.

what makes you think GM stoped making 4.3`s? they are still in production.
still used in the the 1500 series trucks ans i think the full size vans too, as the base engine...
where they are still rated at 195 hp, 260 tq.
and why should GM invest much in making them more powerful? its a low cost, base model engine,
that satisfies the performance needs of the vast majority of the people who buy a basic, no frills truck...

Quote:

However, there HAS to be a restriction in these 4.3's, that if upgraded, would bring it up to modern standards, without giving it a rough idle or poor milage. THAT'S what I wanna know! Can somebody help me out with that?

the factory camshaft is one of the bigger factors in the the lack of upper rpm power.
with duration @ .050" lift in the 185 int./195exh. range, what else would be expected?

[WittyManOfStyle]

Quote: Originally Posted by jumpin jack

bwhahahaha
2400lbs?? i think not, try 2750lbs. 220hp? stock? i don't think so, how bout 170hp

He reduced the weight, added a supercharger that was good for 6-7 PSI. According to the dyno sheets that came with it. (hence 220 HP)

Yes, I beat him AFTER he put on his supercharger.

[jumpin jack]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

He reduced the weight, added a supercharger that was good for 6-7 PSI. According to the dyno sheets that came with it. (hence 220 HP)

Yes, I beat him AFTER he put on his supercharger.

so then it did not come with stock 220hp.

[jd101proof]

OK, this is getting annoying!! the S-10 is a truck. T-R-U-C-K. not a camaro....not a nissan altima.....not...a car. and definetely not a SPORTS CAR. A truck. Made for light utility, pulling loads, hauling granny's couch, or, hmmm....hauling a new motor to put into a sports car. It doesn't require alot of HP, TQ...yes, for pulling. If it was meant to go fast, they would have probably put a hatchback on it, and a Z28 badge. The 4.3 does what it was intended for, and thats why Chevrolet didn't bother to upgrade it. Why fix something that isn't broken??

[4.3Xtreme]

Quote: Originally Posted by inprogress10

is he talking to his computer?

It's called an expression, it's not actually to be taken literally, but it doesn't seem like you understand that...

[556mm]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4.3Xtreme

It's called an expression, it's not actually to be taken literally, but it doesn't seem like you understand that...

it seems you don't understand sarcasm either. it's ok.

[4.3Xtreme]

Quote: Originally Posted by inprogress10

it seems you don't understand sarcasm either. it's ok.

No, I do, it's just sarcasm is very hard to read across a screen as opposed to being in conversation with someone, but it's all good!

[Crew Cab Sonoma]

Quote: Originally Posted by jd101proof

OK, this is getting annoying!! the S-10 is a truck. T-R-U-C-K. not a camaro....not a nissan altima.....not...a car. and definetely not a SPORTS CAR. A truck. Made for light utility, pulling loads, hauling granny's couch, or, hmmm....hauling a new motor to put into a sports car. It doesn't require alot of HP, TQ...yes, for pulling. If it was meant to go fast, they would have probably put a hatchback on it, and a Z28 badge. The 4.3 does what it was intended for, and thats why Chevrolet didn't bother to upgrade it. Why fix something that isn't broken??

well, there is a market for high performance trucks... Dodge Ram SRT10, Dakota R/T 5.9, Ford Lightning, Silverado SS, are common examples.

while the 4.3 does provide ample performance for the majority of buyers, there are always some who want more...
sure, it would have been nice if GM had produced a 220+ hp or so version of the 4.3.... but they didnt. i guess they just didnt see a big enough market demand for it, who knows...

personally, i would like to have seen at least the 5.0 Vortec V8 get dropped into the S-series... or maybe even the 4.8L in the later models, but that never happened either...

so, if you want more performance out of your 4.3, or better yet, want a V8, then its up to you to make it happen....

another thing i`d like to point out... some of you guys seem to take a rather over-simplified view of horspower...
as if the peak figure is all that matters. comepletely ignoring the the bigger picture of AVERAGE HP...
when average hp is taken into account, the 4.3 looks better than most of the smaller engines with similar peak hp, that the 4.3 often gets compared with...

[96blazer]

Quote: Originally Posted by Crew Cab Sonoma

well, there is a market for high performance trucks... Dodge Ram SRT10, Dakota R/T 5.9, Ford Lightning, Silverado SS, are common examples.
...

Not when the either gens of the S trucks were designed. The performance truck market is fairly new.

[02s104.3l]

these engines are guite nice in the power given the engine it's self hasn't seen any major changes in like 20 years. but just think of an s10 and what it is, the majority of people don't buy them to race it, they use it to work. . these trucks are easy to fix, cheap, reliable. the three key ingredients in a mid size truck.

as for why they don't make alot of power, simple they are using old technology. almost every newer car has gone to DOHC. but when you do that manufactuing and repair costs go up. gm has had a rough start with DOHC engines. ie the quad4, it made lots of power, but blew lots of head gaskets. 3.4 v6, it had lots of balls, but with the timing belt there was issues as well as accessory locations(alternator mainly). and they had a late start in the DOHC rush. but the 2.8/3.5/3.7/4.2 engine series has been noted as amoung the most reliable truck engines out there, and gms newer 60*v6 DOHCs have been very well noted for reliablity and use of new technology.

which then comes to the classic question of vtec. good idea, but if you break it down look at it. it supplys you with the advantage of having alot of HP and a very fuel effecient car. however, for just an everyday driver you probably wont have vtec kicking in, so bassically it's like getting jipped out of power. and when vtec kicks in it uses ALOT of fuel.

[raider600]

Quote: Originally Posted by WittyManOfStyle

Ok so this is basically an older motor that never got much attention throughout the years, I pretty much got that.

What bothers me is why the newer truck motors in the Colorado's have equal HP and TQ, instead of higher TQ. 245 HP and 245 TQ is dead even. And these numbers are at much higher RPM's than the 4.3's. Or what bothers me even more, is why GM just completely said "to hell with the 4.3" and quit making them. They could have EASILY gotten much more power outta them, even more power than the Inline 5 and STILL got good milage.

Thats FINE with me.

However, there HAS to be a restriction in these 4.3's, that if upgraded, would bring it up to modern standards, without giving it a rough idle or poor milage. THAT'S what I wanna know! Can somebody help me out with that?

actually. My dad has a 2007 silverado with a 4.3. its rated at 195hp. My friend has a 2004 colorado I5. When we race, its usually dead even. Go out and race an I5 they wont get much on you.
I get good mileage. like 26-27 highway.

[AceHaag]

The down fall of these engines is the lack of good flowing heads. Everything else is available but that. Why would any one put R&D into the 4.3 when there are bigger fish to fry?

[70CHEVY327]

ok so i havent ready every ones post but ive read a few on my way down to the quick reply and i agree with most but personaly the 4.3 isnt weak at all its a strong runner and last for ever if you think low hp means some things weak then you need to learn some more about what your driving around and whop realy want to buy some thing with 500 hp id reather build it so when one day i get beat by some yuppy in his little z or saleene (sp) i can at least say i buit mine and about that 3.5 Altima didnt they have a big recall when they came out cause they burn up before they made it to there first oil change??? i could list a few more if i put some thought in to it just be happy chevy loves you and put a 4.3 in your truck at least its not a 3.0 v6 or a 4.0

[Crew Cab Sonoma]

Quote: Originally Posted by 96blazer

Not when the either gens of the S trucks were designed. The performance truck market is fairly new.

on the contrary... do some research. street performance oriented trucks have have been offered by the big 3 on and off for nearly 4 decades...
big block equipped Rachero GT, and El Camino SS models were offered in the late 60`s-early 70`s. the Chevy "Big 10" pickups of the mid-late 70`s were available with 454`s... which in 1976, was almost as quick as the Corvette was that year.

dont forget the Dodge pickups, offered in various perfomance models throughout the mid-late 70`s the "Warlock" and "Midnight Express" both offered with the 440 big block. and the "Lil Red Express" 360 powered pickups of the late 70`s...
with 1/4 mile times that rivaled, or bettered, the best performance CARS of that era...

not to mention the late 80`s-early/mid 90`s...

the 5.2L 89 Dakota Shelbys, the 1990 Silverado 454 SS, the legendary Syclone/Typhoon S-series of the early 90`s, the 93 5.8L Ford Lightning., ect.

as you can see, performance oriented trucks have been factory offerings longer than most realize....