GM's Forgotten Engines : The Chevrolet 90° V-6
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- In this video, we'll be talking about the Chevrolet 90 degree V-6 engine family. This is an engine that could have been relegated to being an unknown, underpowered V-6 if not for several key upgrades and a decision to expand its use across the S-10, S-15, and C/K truck lineups.
I also had a 2004 Astro AWD with 4.3 V6. I pushed mine 287,000 miles with ALL fluids changed as the manual said. 5000 mile oil changes with synthetic oil. The only problems were a fuel pump failure at 147,000 miles and an ignition module at 190,000 miles. There were no leaks anywhere and I sold it in 2011. It was a great vehicle and the engine never burned oil.
Still have my mint condition 1988 S-10 with the first 4.3l Z engine, it has 160k km on it and has never seen winter driving, still looks new inside and out. Bought it new in 1989.
Lucky!
My dad owns a 99 blazer with the 4.3. Old girl blew a head gasket back in 2018 and it locked up. At the time, we didn’t have much money and were getting by with changing the oil anytime we had to drive it, but we had to be somewhere and didn’t have time for any of that so the engine seized up on us less than a quarter mile from home (at a low RPM, fortunately). Car sat in that state until this last summer when we were finally able to break it loose and start it back up. 6 years of sitting idle and she ran like nothing was wrong.
I had a 1981 Chevy with the 229 V6. I believe the 229 V6 was a 305 V8 minus 2 cylinders and the 4.3 V6 was a 350 V8 minus 2 cylinders.
The 4.3 was a 350 minus 2 plugs and was a strong engine, I had two Silverado trucks with 4.3 vortec and loved them.
You are correct. The 200 V6 (3.3) was a Chevy 267 V8 minus 2 cylinders. Same stroke as a 305/350, but with a very small bore.
@johneckert1365 I had an 81 caprice with the 4.4 v8. It had 115hp and couldn't keep the speed limit up hills. Got a whopping 12mpg by the end.
@@DJMDHertzel sounds lovely 🤮
@johneckert1365
3.5 inch for the 200, and 3.74 for the 229
The later fuel injected 4.3’s were noted for high torque, reliability, and longevity. I put 200,000 miles on one in an Astro van before selling it to a friend. It’s probably still running without any major repair. Unfortunately the auto transmission and rear end in the Astro was not as durable.
We had a Safari AWD and that V6 would pull a loaded snowmobile trailer through a foot of snow without breaking a sweat
The transmission would have last longer if you had changed the filter.
@@blackericdeniceAnd if people would drive it in 3rd (drive) gear rather than 4th (overdrive) when they aren't out on the 55mph+ highways.
@@johneckert1365 That was a myth. Shifting in and out of od didn't hurt the 700r4.
@blackericdenice That's not a myth, it's an absolute fact. Shifting in & out of overdrive, and the torque converter lock-up constantly engaging & disengaging I'd 100% detrimental to TH700R4, 4L60E, 4L65E, etc.... Direct gear (3rd in these transmissions) is the strongest gear. With the torque converter lock-up engaged, all the transmission is doing is directly connecting the engine to the driveshaft, all the other gears are just along for the ride. That's the most efficient gear also, as far as parasitic energy loss through friction & heat.
What wears out transmissions? Excessive heat, friction, and SHIFTING. 🤡🤡🤡
Incorrect on the 2.8 being phased out in 1988 on the pickups. The 4.3 became standard on the Blazers but the 2.8 stayed available on the s series pickups until the 1994 models came out
I drove a 91 S10 4.3 280,000 trouble free miles before it got a rod knock. Awesome little 2wd truck.
I had a 1992 GMC 1/2 ton pickup with this engine and the 5 speed manual. What a sweet combination that had plenty of power and great mileage.
Being a 90° V6, Chevrolet took steps to eliminate the rough running tendencies of the 200. The crankshaft has each of its connecting rod throws offset by 18 degrees for each pair of rods. This produced an engine with a semi-even fire sequence of 132 degrees/108 degrees.
They worked fine being just a bobbed SBC. We beat a couple of S-10 shop trucks like rented mules including packing the beds with salvage engines and transmissions. We took back roads because neither truck had beefed springs and looked as ridiculous as it sounds. Slow but the engines didn't care nor did the rest of the truck. The 4.3 is IMO key to S-10s running so long they were truly worn out before scrapping. The Iron Duke served well but was feeble by comparison to the 4.3. The 4.3 was near as rugged as the 292 straight six, perhaps GMs toughest engine.
Had a 17' ski boat with that engine. Great times on the Arkansas River/Piney Creek.
I had a 1985 4.3 v6 4 barrel in my ski boat and it was dead reliable.
I had an 88 G-10 Van with a 700R4 and it was awesome.
I had an Oldsmobile Bravada with of course the 4.3 V6 that I got 316 thousand before the head gasket blew on the compression side so I lost a cylinder.
Just like most American manufactured engines proper maintenance and they will run for a long time ⌛️
The drawback to these engines is that GM installed them in vehicles that actually weighed too much.
That seems to be the case with a lot of GM engines of this era. If they just didn't offer the smaller ones, people would have been happy with the power, if only from a weak 8 cylinder. I think CAFE requirements had something to do with it.
I had the 200 cubic inch 1978 version in my ,78 Malibu classic
Gutless with a soft camshaft
We had one as well. Couldn't punch it's way out of a paper bag
Had two 1980 Chevy Malibu Classic. Both with the 229ci. V-6. Good cars.
I had driver's license training in a late 70's Malibu with the 3.3L V6, and it could barely climb a hill (I lived in Asheville, NC at the time).
My dad was always proud that our Canadian-built 1983 Malibu wagon had the Buick 3.8L V6 without the GM CCC.
I had a 96 C1500 with the 4.3 Vortex And a 5 speed. I love that pick up. It got in an argument with a six point buck and lost. It got amazing fuel Mileage on the highway24 to26 mpg.
my 81 chevy Malibu had this nice little V6 ,super reliable
3.8 was good in small pickup trucks
0:58-95 HP and 106 ft lb of torque? Wow! It felt like every bit of 107 ft lb in my 78 Malibu. But I did jack the ignition timing up just a smidge. LOL I'm not sorry those boat anchors are gone.
Yeah, mine couldn't punch it's way out of a paper bag
The S10 Blazer with 4.3 V6 was a lot of fun to drive😊
Some wrong info here and there. Just off the top of my head, they never put the 90* v6 in 3rd gen Camaros and the 2.8l wasn't phased out of the s10 line up. The 4.3l became the top option while the 125hp 2.8l was still avalible.
You're absolutely right. They stopped using it in the Camaro after 1981. I don't know why I said '84. I think I have to stop writing these scripts after working overtime. And yes, the 2.8 continued to be offered in the S-10/15 lineup until 1993.
The old spider injectors...uhhh they were pain if you had to change them breakage occurred.. lol 😊
My dad inherited a '79 Malibu wagon with one of these engines, a 3.3 liter. It had about 50,000 miles, and my grandfather had to have it rebuilt. My dad drove it for a year as a work car when it started to need a rebuild AGAIN. These were some of the worst engines GM ever built!
The '82 Camaro V6 was a new 60 degree design that had nothing to do with the 90 degree engine.
The Camaro got the same garbage 2.8 60 degree V6 as the S-10 lineup got, as well as some of the small front wheel drive cars. AMC even bought a few of those engines for thier early Cherokees.
0 to 60 on the Syclone was low 5s .
The 4.3 turbo made 360 lbs-ft torque.
Besides being very reliable one nice added thing about the 4.3 was the sound it made. With a simple glasspack muffler and some larger tubing it's one of the few V6's that made people think you had a small V8 in your truck. It had a nice grumble to it compared to a lot of modern V6's. :)
Truthfully, I thought this engine was only used in the Chevy Astro/GMC Safari.
Other than a few early ones with 2.5 Iron Duke, all the Astrovans had a 4.3
60 . Not 90
These engines were based on the small block architecture, therefore making them 90°. The 60° GM V6 wasn’t introduced until the 1980 model year in the X cars
My 1.9 tdi has almost more hp stock lol and its tiny compaired to it granted its alot newer also ik for a fuck my honda fit makes more hp than it😂
Yes, because it’s totally fair to compare a carbureted V6 to a GDI Honda or a TDI Volkswagen
this engine sucked. could not keep a rear main seal in them
Honestly I drove alot of the 4.3l they literally are dogs shitty gad miles, have to full throttle just to go any where it's either off or on soo slow
03 Sierra was very peppy with the 262
Once the 4.3 got the same "Vortec" heads and fuel system as the V8's it wasn't so bad.
I agree that the carburated and TBI 4.3's were pretty weak though
Yes it was modeled after the small block Chevy,even some parts were the same.