Traditionally, V6 half-ton truck sales have been pretty insignificant compared to their V8 counterparts, especially in the retail sector. But engine technology has come a long way in 10 years, which is about the average age of most pickup trucks on the road. Because of this, prospective customers of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with the 4.3 liter EcoTec3 V6 engine will find the baby of the Silverado’s engine lineup is not only more powerful than the V8 in their older pickup, but more efficient as well.
The 4.7 liter Magnum V8 in the 2004 Dodge Ram produced 235 horsepower and 295 lb-ft of torque, while the 4.6 liter Triton V8-equipped F-150 from that year produced even less, at 231 horsepower and 293 lb-ft of torque. The EcoTec3 V6 will out power both of those at 285 horsepower and 305 lb-ft of torque.
The EcoTec3 V6 will also help save money at the pumps over an old V8. The 4.6 liter Triton V8 for example, gets 14 mpg city and 18 mpg highway, while the EcoTec3 will return 18 mpg in the city and 24 mpg in the highway. New technologies, like continuously variable valve timing, direct injection and active fuel management, which lets the engine run on only 4 of its 6 cylinders, all contribute to the EcoTec3’s enhanced fuel economy.
Because of the engines comparable power to the V8s of yesterday and enhanced fuel economy, General Motors says the EcoTec3 4.3 liter V6 now accounts for about 20 percent of light-duty pickup sales. So if you’re coming off a V8 pickup and are concerned the 4.3 liter V6 wont be powerful enough, don’t be, there is a good chance it would outperform you’re old V8.
Comments
I really like this new 4.3L. The only thing missing in the ECOTEC3’s is Intake Variable Valve Lift which would increase the fuel economy significantly! In the future, I want to see the 4.3L that has 335HP/310FT-LBS as an option in the Traverse, Acadia and Enclave (which should be moved to the Super Epsilon) and the Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon as a hybrid. .
Well there are a lot of good things here but also some things left on the table
While smoother running it still has a little vibration that is inherent to 90 degree V6 engines. I is no where near what I had in my 88 S10 but it is still there. A 60 degree would fix that.
Also the 90 degree would be an issue to put in a FWD transverse. You could make them fit but there would be little room. This is why they use the 3.6.
I did wish they had changed the engine size as too many uninformed people mistake this and the LT1 to be just another small block Chevy. Other than bore spacing there is nothing shared with nearly all other versions. To be honest to call it a small block really does not really represent it to be as advanced as it really is. But on the other hand it does play on the history of a really good past engine.
I really wonder what GM has planned for there engines as we only really know much about the future of the Ecotec 4 cylinder but we have yet to see the direction they will take the V6 program in other than the Turbo Cadillac.
The V8 will be around for a while yet but it will be interesting to see where they go with it. The are running out of tricks and cylinders to drop. Do they go smaller displacement and Turbo?
It will be interesting to watch.
Really?
Scott brings up a good point; I wonder what will become of the 3.6 V6. Other then the new twin turbo, GM hasn’t revealed much about it’s future. With the 2.0 turbo now making more torque than the naturally aspirated 3.6, it seems like it could be replaced. I could see GM taking the 2.0 turbo up towards 300hp and 300 lb ft of torque considering how much power mercedes amg got out of their 2.0. I think if the 3.6 is to stay, it needs to get close to 350hp and 350lb ft torque.
A 6 cylinder will stay in GM’s engine lineup no matter what due to the fact that a 4 banger cannot tow crap. My guess is that they will downsize the displacement to either 3.2L or 3.0L and add iVVL. If they can get 295HP/285FT-LBS into that engine, it would be awesome, but only an I6 could get those torque numbers with such a small displacement. As for the Ecotec lineup, I think that they will put iVVL in them too with smaller displacements (1.0L, 1.2L, 1.4L, 1.6L, 1.8L and 2.0L) and turboes. Cars should only have I3’s and I4’s available while CUV’s have I4’s and V6’s/I6’s and SUV’s/Trucks have V6’s/I6’s and V8’s.
If you want to look at advanced engine tech… Consider the new Ford 2.7 v6 EcoBoost in the new F150…
The CGI block is a “Game Changer” (ref. WardsAuto) that allows diesel like high pressure n compression ratios that should produce very “high output” like mid size v8…
This could compete with the 5.3 v8 at half it’s size with upper 20s mpg…!
Makes the 4.3 v6 look lame…!
Uhm no. You are just completely wrong end to end. Block material literally has nothing to do with creating “diesel like” compression ratios. If you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t post.
The 2.0 has not even been taken close to what it can do.
My 2.0 with the GM performance upgrade is at 295 HP and 315 Ft LBS. In the Solstice manual they torque is 340 FT LBS.
GM has run and shown the 2.0 all the way up to 500 HP with reliability. The main changes were premium fuel, pistons and rods. The rest of the engine is good for a lot more. When John Lingenfelter was running his truck for us in NHRA he was using stock blocks and heads up to 1500 HP before the heads would crack.
While most of GMs offerings will be 4 cylinder there will still be a need for a V6. Are we going to get a new HF V6 or will we get a whole new engine at some point?
There is talk of a smaller Turbo engine out there and I ponder if Chevy may get it for the Camaro as an optional engine to the V6. It also could see duty in the SS sedan when it transitions over to the Alpha.
Either way I see a 300 plus Ecotec 4 coming soon and it will be common used engine in many models. GM has had a HP lead and the others have caught up. I see more performance models with the new more powerful Turbo 4 soon.
I see 23 PSI daily and no issue for 5 years. It also did not void the warranty and all is fine. The transmission is the only limiting factor as the engine per GM will go to 400 HP with no other needed upgrades to internals. Then only pistons and rods.
The other thing that will limit power in other applications is the premium fuel recommended rating. GM likes this as it gives the customer the choice of fuel. When I upgraded they gave me a sticker to replace the recommended to required.
The extra cost is not much but it is enough to scare some customers away. They see the sticker and panic not realizing that at 25-30 MPG it really does not add much to operating cost.
I am surprised more manufacturers, GM, Ford etc, have not look to resurrect inline 6 cylinders. I know the packaging advantage (only advantage really) of V6, but straight 6 have so much other advantages. Smoother, more torquey, reliable, potential for more power, sound better, etc. V6 is easier to package, but if BMW can fit their straight 6 in their 1 and 2 series, I am sure a modern turbo straight 6 pushing north of 400hp would be nice in these half ton trucks and SUVs.
GM should use the 9.5 inch rear axle with the V6 as well. The new transmission will do wonders for this powerplant as well. A big ratio spread is always nice for towing/hauling/off roading.
With the coolant pumps moved to the side on the gen5 motors, away from the cam cover I can see “cam in cam” IVVT within a few years.
Giving us more HP,TQ and MPG. All part of the big picture I believe!
Evan the V6 will remain but it and the V8 account for less than 25% of all sales and this number will drop. The fact is most models today have limited choices including many that offer nothing but a 4 cylinder. They will need the V6 for the RWD cars, Trucks and performance models but they will be in smaller numbers compared to the rest of the models sold.
As for the Inline. It would be great but they are not only hard to package but even in all aluminum they are heavier. This is why we lost the Atlas. GM tried it and the engine ran fine but the MPG and the ability to put it in anything else was poor.
I have been watching the W engines from VW. They have done well so far for durability and ok on MPG. Their size is amazing how small they are. I have a co worker with a rare Jetta wagon with a W 8 in it and most people see it just think it’s a V6. I do not expect anyone else no connected to VW to use it but I thought it was an interesting idea that looks like it works.
Scott, I’m not sure I agree with your comments on the inline 6. In these modern times, reliability is only an issue if the manufacturer makes it an issue. I don’t see why any engineer worth his pay would not be able to fit a modern inline 6 in a half ton. Not to repeat my earlier comments, but what is it that BMW knows, or can do, that no one else can? Nothing. And we all know how loved and successful their 6 is, and I don’t think it is heavier or less efficient than their competitors V6. An inline 6 might be difficult for FWD cars, but for trucks, I think it would be phenomenal! I would buy one in a heartbeat.
Platform…!
BMW RWD 3-series platform has been around f or decades and was originally designed for the I6 engine n 50/50 wt balance… They have the platform like no one else…!
Most mfgrs want an engine for both fwd and limited RWD and I6 is too long like 50% longer vs v8…!
Good points, but remember, all of these trucks are RWD based, and trucks for GM and Ford, are not only their most profitable products, but also their highest volume. So developing an engine specifically for trucks should be fine, without having to worry about sharing it with other models.
Pal
You may want to note here that the I6 can fit but you run into other issues.
Case in point in the Trail Blazer the axle shaft was run through the pan do to suspension limitations and engine requirements.
The engine is longer so there will be less space in crash crumple zones vs. say even the V8.
If at some point they want to lower the hood and still meet the clearance standards the engine would have to be laid over as BMW does.
Weight even all aluminum the block and head are heavy castings due the torsional rigidity needs vs. a V block.
I would love nothing better than a good I6 but it just is not as versatile as the present engine.
Add to this the savings of using the same pistons, lifters, valves water pumps etc as the V8 it also save cost in a truck.
Also the engine is not used anywhere else as most FWD models just do not have the room for the 90 degree V. Lord knows my 60 degree is tight enough in my GMC as it is.
So while I agree with you that it would be a nice option there is a lot more to consider here as it is not just all about fit of the engine in the compartment but also with related system, Cost, Sharing of Parts and weight.
GM tried this with mixed results in the Trailblazer and found the V6 to just work out better over all the parameters they face.
BMW has a history with the I6 and it is much like the transverse leaf in the Corvette a part of it’s heritage. Much like the Transverse leaf BMW could do a better V6 to fit in better but it would lose one of the hallmarks they built their rep on. Sometimes Marketing take president over plain facts and figures and that is whey they are one of the few to use an inline engine yet today.
This is another case where on the surface it looks good but you have to consider all the facts and issues GM faces to make sense of it.
You summed up virtually all the points I was going to make. I would honestly be stunned if this v6 doesn’t make it into more of GM’s rwd stable. I’m hoping they make a car version with a shorter intake manifold, better cam, and stick it in the caprice, camaro, etc….
I’ve been waiting for this engine to debut since the first rumor I read almost two years ago. Would I buy a new fullsize with the new 4.3? Yep. I’d wait until the 8 speed though.
I think the aftermarket is going to really like it also…. not that it matters to new vehicle sales so much…
Mfgrs are packaging new vehicle platforms to pass the increasing crash tests and spread engines around… V6 is 50% the length of I6 n fits in both RWD n RWD.
Fords new 2.7 V6 EcoBoost will deliver more power n efficiency mpg in both RWD n fwd platforms to spread the cost n keep price premium reasonable.
Greg you are correct as the scale of cost is very important and the more use you can get out of an engine and platform with out hurting the marketing aspect the better.
If it were not for the 4.3 using parts of the LT engine the trucks would have something based on the HF V6.
Another GM advertisement from ‘authority. People, if you are in the market, and it has to be a GM, do yourselves a favor and get the 5.3. There is a slim chance you will get ten and a half more yards out of a gallon of fuel on the V6, other than that just drawbacks with the 4.3.
magirus
Write this down as we somewhat agree here.
The V6 will give you some more MPG but for what little you gain the 5.3 is just a better option. Also when you go to sell the V8 will deliver much more on resale.
vibration gmc v-6