Community Question: Should General Motors Offer Its 4.3-Liter V6 In SUVs Too?21
It’s a question us here at GM Authority have mulled over once before, so we’re bringing it to the table for you all.
The 4.3-liter Ecotec3 V6 LV3 succeeds the Vortec line-up of small-block engines, including the previous 4.3-liter V6 LU3. The LV3 V6 makes do with a host of upgraded technology to ensure fuel efficiency, and power, such as variable valve timing, and cylinder deactivation.
Derived from the fifth-generation small-block program, it’s essentially a 5.3-liter small-block V8 minus two cylinders. But, the V6 produces a healthy 285 hp and 305 lb-ft of torque. And it would fit easily under the hood of a Chevrolet Tahoe, Suburban, or GMC Yukon for that matter.
GM’s true SUVs carry a lot of weight with them, and currently may only be had with the 5.3-liter V8, save for the Cadillac Escalade and GMC Yukon Denali, which both receive the top end of the spectrum: the 6.2-liter L86 V8. And both of those powertrains scoot the SUVs around briskly, never feeling underpowered.
The 4.3-liter V6 could draw a crowd to the rekindled SUV love affair, as gas prices stay relatively cheap across the greater 48 states. But, they may also feel sluggish, as they compensate for added mass not found in their truck counterparts.
Do you think it would be a smart move to offer the 4.3-liter V6 as a base engine for Chevrolet and GMC’s SUV portfolio? Or, should the engine stick with the truck crowd? Let us know in the poll, and sound off in the comments below.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
A CCSB Silverado is only about 200lbs lighter than a Tahoe. Not really noticeable in daily driving. 4.3 would work nicely.
Would love to see the 4.3 in the Colorado / Canyon. Would also like to see the return of the ZQ8 suspension package.
I agree 100% on this one. I really don’t understand why they went with the 3.6 V6 over the 4.3 in these trucks. The torque advantage they have over LFX would make it seem like it would be more appropriate. But most likely the efficiency end game was more important so the 3.6 won out. But it would be cool to have the ZQ8 option back. checking that box off would give you all body color bumpers, 4.3, a 6-speed manual or auto, ZQ8 suspension package, 20 inch wheels, G80 locking diff, and having the choice to include whatever options you wish (fog lights, navi, leather, ect.). Unlike how GM usually does it by forcing you to have all the expensive gismos once you order that particular package. Allow customers to pick and choose.
Having the 3.6 helps differentiate it from a 4.3 full size. The 3.6 can tow a spitting distance from 7000lbs, that’s the same amount as the 4.8 V8 in the NNBS Silverado-Sierras.
The Colorado/Canyon are more targeting crossover buyers than people stepping down from a fullsize purchase, so the 3.6 also makes sense for that. Even just mentioning a 4.3 in a crossover competitor sounds like it’s going to be bad on fuel.
3.6 is a pretty standard size engine for a V6 in a crossover. And the only real rival, the new Taco, didn’t bring anything special to the game in the V6 department either, so there is no push from GM to upgrade.
I bet there will be a turbo4 in the Canyon, but never the 4.3.
Hopefully the new LGX 3.6 finds it’s way into the Canyon-Colorado next year and bumps outputs close to the ATS/CTS 355hp and 290lb-ft.
No they should leave it go. I do think they should put that 4.3 in the Canyon/Colorado along with the 5.3 like the last gen. It would make a nice options for the Terrain and Equinox too I think.
Depending on performance why not.
Also love to see a small diesel in all the GMT900 based pickups and SUV’s .
Offering th 4.3L as a base engine wouldn’t be the worst idea, but they should offer the 3.6L TT and when it comes, definitely the (fingers crossed) 4.5L Duramax. Give people choices. Even though the 5.3 and 6.2 serve the purpose required of these vehicles perfectly, easily-swayed consumers and every review publication out there seem to be in love with Ford’s ecoboost 4- and 6-cyl engines. Maybe just the availability of these other engine choices, even though some of these engines might overlap capability-wise, would be enough to push the Tahoe and Yukon to the top of the comparison reviews (where they should be already).
The 4.3 V6…yes but with turbo(s).
Big mistake to not offer the 8-speed with the 5.3 in all Tahoes and Yukons for 2016. While fuel economy might not be the primary criteria for buyers of these vehicles, few more mpg with these vehicles are important to some.
Why not put 3.6 TT?
I can almost guarantee the 6.2 with its cylinder deactivation and DI will come out more efficient than an over worked twin turbo 6.. The new escalade for instance gets better fuel economy than the ecoboost navigator
I would rather see a turbo-diesel in the Yukon, Tahoe and Suburban, than the 4.3L V6. I would absolutely buy one and ditch my car if GM would do this. They would sell many more diesels than a V6. Come on, GM, bring us a 1/2 ton diesel engine and stop letting Fiat-Chrysler running away with the 1/2 ton diesel market!!!
I ditched my Suburban for a Ram Ecodiesel for this very reason…. If GM offered a similar 1/2 ton package for hunters and fishermen that need the highway and towing performance of a diesel, but don’t need a 3/4 ton package to do it, they would have the ultimate sportsman’s platform.
Not to derail the conversation, but I would be more excited to see a supercharged 6.2L be an option in the Yukon Denali or Escalade. Call it an Escalade-V and then make up some designation for the Yukon version.
4.3L is pointless in the pickups already. Less power for the same MPG.
While this problem may not be a deal breaker for someone in the market for bare bones work truck, it’d be tough sale for the average luxury SUV buyer who will never believe that less is more.
And that’s aside from the fact that we should have been done discussing pushrod V6 engines with a 90 degree V angle in about 1994.
The advantage of the 4.3L over the 3.6L is lb-ft…305 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm vs. 269 @ 4000 rpm.
Torque advantage / Driving dynamics of the 4.3L in a smaller truck with a loaded pickup bed would
put a smile on any driver’s face.
I’m talking real world situations here, not just numbers on paper.
Leave the 4.3 V6 for the pickup trucks including Colorado and Canyon trucks .
I am shocked it is not there already. The engine has enough power and would do well. The full size truck V6 sales are as high as they have ever been.
As we move forward it is not a matter of if but when.
The Diesel would be ok and would sell to the diesel fans but it would not replace a V6 for many buyers due to the extra cost. It should be part of the package in the line but not relied upon to pick up the sales. of the V6 too.
As for the Colorado the engine it has now is just fine. Also the future emissions may also limit the future for the 4.3. I know they have gotten better but the fact is the 4.3 is nearly the end as they have used about ever trick you can including cylinder drop to keep the model alive. I suspect this is why the Colorado did not stop thee and also the V6 is the up scale engine not the base as in the full size so cost was less a factor with the more expensive 3.6.
I do expect Turbos to be employed at some point but the key there is to cut even more weight.
I am also waiting to see if they do a ZQ8 Canyon as that would be my first choice with the 3.6 in a crew.
If I wanted a neutered V-6, I would look into buying the Lincoln Navigator as a opposed to the the Yukon Denali or Escalade. Part of the appeal to me on the Yukon Denali and Escalade is the 6.2L V-8 growl when starting the car. Performance is not significantly different between the Navigator and Yukon Denali, but the feel, sound, and enjoyment I get from starting my Yukon Denali in front of my father-in-law with his drop-dog face when he hears my engine growl, makes me smile since I know he regrets buying his Navigator every time he hears me start up my SUV.
Sure Ford switched to the aluminum chassis and took 700lbs off their F-150 and are going to build the 2017 Raptor with a turbo charged V-6, and if the body on frame Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade want to switch to a similar engine, the typical consumer will not mind as long as the SUV weighs less and keeps the same torque. However, the Lincoln Navigator sounds terrible when it is started up and seems anemic compared to the GM V-8 powered SUVs. It would be a shame to lose the big block V-8 growl, but I am not blind to the changing landscape of federal gas consumption laws that will force the automakers to make changes beginning in 2017, but hopefully the body on frame big SUV keeps its luxury and swagger.
How about a turbo on the 5.3? I imagine it would stay in 4 cylinder mode on the highway at 80 mph going up a small grade and have excellent towing. You could drop the 6.2L since a turbo 5.3L would be more powerful. Having a single engine for all full-size gas platorms should reduce cost through scale. Bring the duramax to the 1500 line.
not happy with 2017 gmc denali need better suspention