Vortec 4.3L V-6 -- Opinions Wanted.
One-Shot Scot
poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this
GM recall real??") With the exception of the GM passenger car diesels, I
feel that the 4.3L Vortec V-6 is possibly the biggest lemon that any
vehicle manufacturer has ever palmed off its unsuspecting customers. I
am offering my negative experience and negative opinions of the 4.3
Vortec V-6, but I would welcome any feedback.
The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact,
it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of
the 5.7L (350 cubic inch) V-8, to create a 4.3L (265 cubic inch) V-6.
But the problem with this design is that the 5.7 V-8 is a balanced
engine (two pistons up/two pistons down -- two piston up/two pistons
down), but the 4.3 V-6 is an unbalanced engine (two pistons up/one
piston down -- two pistons down/one piston up). This V-6 imbalance is
made worse due to the massive size and huge displacement of the 5.7L
pistons and GM has been unsuccessful in its attempts to get the 4.3
engine to stop shaking. The inherent failure of the 4.3 engine design
was addressed by GM when it released its smaller 4.8L (295 cubic inch)
V-8 engine. The 4.8L V-8 is 30 cubic inches (11%) larger than the 4.3L
V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the
4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy.
Around 1990, GM was very concerned with producing a low-priced,
full-size pickup which would deliver unusually-high gas mileage. This
gas miser would then be used to offset GM's extremely profitable gas
hogs. In order to accomplish its goal, GM introduced a C1500 pickup
which would actually deliver its 18/24 MPG rating. This gas-saving,
loss-leader was built around a 160 HP 4.3 Vortec V-6, with a Getrag
5-speed manual transmission and a standard 3.08 differential. The key to
higher gas mileage figures, for all GM truck engines, was the Getrag
5-speed manual transmission, which delivered 15-20% higher gas mileage
than trucks with automatic transmissions. GM was so anxious to produce
this gas-saving, manual transmission vehicle that it offered a $1500
"Manual Transmission Bonus Package" incentive, which lured in suckers,
such as myself, who bought the atrocious 4.3 Vortec V-6.
For some reason, my 1990 Chevrolet C1500 California 4.3 truck came with
a smog pump, while other 1990 C1500 models with 5.0 and 5.7 V-8 engines
did not have smog pumps. This smog pump robbed the 4.3 of power that it
couldn't spare. My original 4.3 was the epitome of the old joke that GMC
stands for Garage Man's Companion. My first complaint of constant 5th
gear pinging was remedied by the dealer by retarding the spark. The
pinging didn't go away and retarding the spark made the truck feel like
it was pulling a trailer. I endured the pinging and low power for a
month. Then, through a stroke of luck, a mechanic discovered a service
bulletin which revealed that GM had released a new PROM for my vehicle
which was designed to correct an engine flare that occurred when
shifting between gears with a manual transmission. Even though my truck
didn't have this shifting problem, the service manager reasoned that the
new PROM might have other re-designed features which could fix the
pinging. Fortunately, he was right.
My 4.3 was mechanically-noisy, especially so after a cold start, when
the engine would race uncontrollably at a high idle until it warmed up.
The engine also vibrated badly, particularly in the 1200 to 2000 RPM
range. To my dismay, a GM service bulletin revealed that this was a
"1200 RPM Shake" and that this severe vibration was considered to be
normal operation for the 4.3. The engine speed compensation never worked
when the air conditioner was operating, so the engine would buck and
jerk when shifting gears when the compressor was engaged. When the truck
was stopped in traffic, the compressor would drag RPMs down to the point
of nearly killing the engine. I would either have to speed up the engine
by pressing down on the gas pedal or turn off the AC when stopped in
traffic. The dealer was never able to fix this problem.
After 106 thousand miles, the 4.3 Vortec V-6 developed a loud knocking
noise and removal of the valve covers revealed that the engine had a dry
side. One side of the engine was clean and gleaming with oil, while the
other side was charred and blacked due to oil depravation. I had
religiously changed the oil and filter every 2500 miles, but to no
avail. The engine was ruined and would have to be replaced.
I decided to go with a Goodwrench rebuilt engine, however, the dealer
told me that the original 1990 4.3 had been replaced with an "improved"
200 HP version. I think he mentioned something about a "roller cam", but
I'm not sure. In any event, the new engine did have more power, but it
used more gas. Then, after 6000 miles, the Goodwrench engine spun a
bearing and needed to be replaced under warranty.
The next Goodwrench engine ran well enough for 110 miles, but it was
starting to use oil. The "1200 RPM Shake" and air conditioning problems
continued to plague this engine, as well. Finally, in February 2004, the
vehicle was branded as a "Gross Polluter" and I was only able to get
$1000 for it from a wholesaler. I disclosed this SMOG problem to the man
who bought my truck, but because the truck scored well in the
hydrocarbon section and had only failed one of the NOX tests, he thought
that the problem would be relatively simple to fix -- maybe a loose
vacuum hose or a bad catalytic converter. It turned out that he needed
to spend over $1300 to get the truck smogged. Fortunately, he was still
able to sell the truck for a modest profit.
While I see others who have gotten 200 thousand miles of trouble-free
miles from their 5.7 (350) engines, I had to suffer through three 4.3
V-6 engines to obtain the same mileage. The money I saved on gas was
more than offset by the downtime and expenses that I incurred while
dealing with the deplorable 4.3 Vortec V-6.
My overall feeling is that the 4.3 Vortec V-6 is a piece of crap. I
would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6
story to tell.
Big Chris
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
> While I see others who have gotten 200 thousand miles of trouble-free
> miles from their 5.7 (350) engines, I had to suffer through three 4.3
> V-6 engines to obtain the same mileage. The money I saved on gas was
> more than offset by the downtime and expenses that I incurred while
> dealing with the deplorable 4.3 Vortec V-6.
>
> My overall feeling is that the 4.3 Vortec V-6 is a piece of crap. I
> would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6
> story to tell.
>
>
Anyone buying a full-sized truck with a mid-sized motor gets what they
deserve. I have a S-10 with the 4.3L and it is a great combo. Yes they
shake because they are unbalance, but it's a truck. Pull your tampon out.
Trade it in and get the Toyota you've been really wanting.
Big Chris
old bonehead
(7,200 lb GVW) van with the 4.3. I only have had it for 18 mos., but it
has been a great engine and great vehicle so far. I have had zero
problems with it, it has never been back to the dealer, though there is
a recall to replace the rear license plate light (since when does a rear
license plate light merit a recall?).
Most of my driving is in Los Angeles traffic, but I did monitor my gas
mileage on a 1,000 mile round trip on the freeway, and it averaged 20.3
MPG with less than 2,000 miles on the odometer at the time. I have not
checked it since, but I have to think it probably is even better now
that the engine is broken in.
The 2003 4.3 passes smog here in California as an ultra low emission
vehicle (ULEV) even without an EGR valve, which should stand a testament
to its efficiency. Here are a couple sites with some info/specs on this
engine:
http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/vortec/apps/vehicle/4300.htm
http://media.gm.com:8221/division/2004_prodinfo/powertrain/truck/index.html
What sold me on this particular engine is that it basically is the
rugged iron 350 V8 with a pair of cylinders removed from the center. As
noted, it is a large bore and stroke engine (like the old V8), is made
of iron, does not seem to have a lot of the cylinder head and intake
manifold leaks that many of the aluminum head engines seem to have, GM
has made millions of them and appears to have refined it.
My engine is very smooth (balance shaft and enhanced mounts). But what
sold me on the engine was that it ought to be rugged, it can get 20 mpg
in a cargo van, and it develops peak torque (260 ft lb) at an incredibly
low 2,800 rpm. Right off idle, this engine has great torque, feels like
a large V8, just what I wanted in a truck. I believe the large bore and
stroke, combined with a cam profile, make this engine exceptionally
"torquey" for it's displacement and fuel economy. As a comparison, the
4.8L V8 produces slightly more torque (285 lb ft), but only at 4,000
RPM.. The 4.3 has great "grunt" off the line with no fuss, no muss.
Now climbing in the mountains with a load, it only has 200 HP, so the
four-speed automatic will downshift more than if it had 6.0 litter V8,
but it has never been unable to hold the speed set on the cruise control.
It has roller rockers and roller lifters, a cast aluminum oil pan that
bolts into the transmission as well, very sophisticated fuel injection
and computer engine management systems, no noticeable noise or
vibration, and great drivability and economy.
One-Shot, I am not trying to dismiss anything you experienced with your
engines, but just wanted to offer up that I could not be happier with
the 2003 4.3L in my GMC cargo van.
old bonehead
shiden_Kai
> The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact,
> it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of
> the 5.7L (350 cubic inch) V-8, to create a 4.3L (265 cubic inch) V-6.
> But the problem with this design is that the 5.7 V-8 is a balanced
> engine (two pistons up/two pistons down -- two piston up/two pistons
> down), but the 4.3 V-6 is an unbalanced engine (two pistons up/one
> piston down -- two pistons down/one piston up). This V-6 imbalance is
> made worse due to the massive size and huge displacement of the 5.7L
> pistons and GM has been unsuccessful in its attempts to get the 4.3
> engine to stop shaking. The inherent failure of the 4.3 engine design
> was addressed by GM when it released its smaller 4.8L (295 cubic inch)
> V-8 engine. The 4.8L V-8 is 30 cubic inches (11%) larger than the 4.3L
> V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the
> 4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy.
Well, if nothing else, you are certainly "un-informed" about the
design of the 4.3 Vortec engine. They have had balance shafts
for years now and are a good running, and smooth running engines.
I wouldn't recommend one for a full size truck, though I have a few
friends who have the 4.3 in the full size trucks, and for just blasting
around town, or hauling a bit of a load, they work great. We do
almost "no" mechanical work to these engines in the dealership. They
have proven to be very reliable and trouble free. They do have the
intake manifold gasket concern that the v-8's do, but even then, I've
seen very few of these engines actually blow up due to the coolant
getting into the oil.
The Buick 3800 engine also uses a balance shaft. Very nice,
smooth, reliable engine (for the most part). Any 90 degree
v-6 engine has to have a balance shaft to be smooth.
Ian
Rick De Visser
years ago with about 220,000km on it. It ran great. Took it to smog and
passes with flying colours. Today it still runs great. Smooth, quiet, no
complaints with the engine whatsoever. Excellent power from stop (I was
actually quite impressed how snappy it is). No oil burning, no smoke, no
ticking, no drips. The mileage isn't the greatest at about 20mpg (canadian)
but it was cheap and I needed the room (8 people). I know the RWD vans get
better mileage. I have driven it about 60,000km.
My vote gives a yeah to GM for the 'turn the key and it goes' worry free
driving on this one (and on my 2.8L with 300,000km and on my 2.2L with
325,000km)
I have own imports and had problems with burning oil at much less mileage
and connectors corroding out.
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
Karl Perry
"Rick De Visser" <devi...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:bFhIc.636$RD4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> ticking, no drips. The mileage isn't the greatest at about 20mpg
(canadian)
Huh? Is a mile in Canada a different distance than a mile in the US?
Karl Perry
Karl Perry
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
<snip>
I've got a '97 Astro AWD currently with 116,000 miles. We bought it two
years ago with 70,000 miles. It has the Vortec 4.3L V-6, and I bought the
van specifically BECAUSE of that, because of its reputation. We have had
zero problems with the engine. We have had problems with other components
on the van, but the engine is fantastic.
I bought the Astro because it is the only minivan with enough balls to tow a
horse trailer, and it has done well at that.
Before we bought ours, my parents had an '86 with the 4.3L (not sure it's a
Vortec at that age) that they put 175,000 miles on. It was still going
strong when their tow hitch parted while they were towing it behind their
motor home - but that's another story. They bought a GMC Safari again with
the 4.3L to replace the '86, and put something like 100,000 miles on that
one.
My sister and b-i-l have had two Astros both with the 4.3L, and have had
zero problems.
I have numerous other friends who have had this engine in their vehicles,
and have never had a complaint.
I wonder if Scot has been using the vehicle beyond its design spec.
Karl Perry
old bonehead
car engine) are two of the best engines ever built, and they both are
all iron, 90 degree V6's. I think some of the first 4.3 were rough
runners (dependable, but a little rough running), but they are torquey,
efficient, dependable engines.
bonehead
Mike Levy
underpowered by ANY means. I'm on my second 4.3L engine, but it's
also in my second S-series truck. My first truck had 115,000 miles on
it when I traded it, and I got rid of it for reasons other than the
engine. In the time I had that truck only 4 repairs were made to the
engine, oil filter adapter leaked, the intake manifold agskets leaked,
the CPI unit leaked and the EGR failed. The EGR was covered by GM, at
60,000 miles. The rest was covered by me. That engine didn't burn or
leak ONE drop of oil, didn't rattle, ping, knock or even run rough.
Oh yeah, it was a 94 W engine. I got rid of the truck because the
rest of it was starting to fall apart. I just had regular oil changes
done and replaced the spark plugs every 15,000-20,000 miles.
My 2000 S-10 also has the 4.3L engine in it. Also has no ping, knock,
oil leaks and doesn't burn any oil and I can hardly tell it's running
except for looking at the tach, but it's only got 67,000 on it. I
bought a second truck with the same engine, what's that tell ya?
FYI, the injector on my first truck didn't fail until 100,000 miles or
so. Imagine how many times it's fired by then, and how much fuel has
passed through the regulator. You'd be tired of working also if you'd
performed the same function that much.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:48:26 -0700, "One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com>
wrote:
Mike Levy
No, but the Canadians would use an Imperial Gallon as opposed to a US
Gallon...
websurfer
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
1991 Astro Van, 4-sp a/t, AWD that has the 4.3. I currently have 214k miles
on it and it still runs great. Towed a 19' Wellcraft boat from No. Va. to
Myrtle Beach S.C. three years in a row, no problem. All I've done is keep
the oil clean and same for the trans, diff's and xfer case, changed the air
filter every once in awhile, she's good to go. It's starting to show it's
age now, but mechanically it's fine.
hank
--
hank
2004 Chev Z71
"Mike Levy" <mike-ne...@levyclan.nospam.us> wrote in message
news:ehe3f0hdfp1bhmcuf...@4ax.com...
_bent
with absolutely NO problems. Hell, I don't even recall any shaking and this
truck got the pi$$ driven out of it, on AND off road ! Mileage wasnt bad,
about 16 around town and 18-20 on the hiway depending on my driving habits.
You had a lemon. It happens to every manufacturer in one way or another. I
have a brother with a 1999 Toyota Tundra 4x4 V8 and he has had mucho
problems with it. So much so that he is currently in arbitration for a
replacement truck.
Flame all you want, the 4.3 in my opinion was a good motor. My truck took
everything I dished out and came back hungry for more....
_bent
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.717 / Virus Database: 473 - Release Date: 7/8/2004
William R. Walsh
> It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's
> poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this
> GM recall real??") With the exception of the GM passenger car diesels, I
> feel that the 4.3L Vortec V-6 is possibly the biggest lemon that any
> vehicle manufacturer has ever palmed off its unsuspecting customers. I
> am offering my negative experience and negative opinions of the 4.3
> Vortec V-6, but I would welcome any feedback.
I've never heard of anyone saying the 4.3 was a bad motor. In fact, I have
two of them and both have been great. One is in a full size truck and with
patience it does just fine there. The one in the fullsize just crossed
100,000 miles and shows no signs of stopping. Not that I'd expect it to at
that relatively low mileage.
> The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact,
> it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of
> the 5.7L (350 cubic inch) V-8, to create a 4.3L (265 cubic inch) V-6.
> But the problem with this design is that the 5.7 V-8 is a balanced
> engine (two pistons up/two pistons down -- two piston up/two pistons
> down), but the 4.3 V-6 is an unbalanced engine (two pistons up/one
> piston down -- two pistons down/one piston up). This V-6 imbalance is
> made worse due to the massive size and huge displacement of the 5.7L
> pistons and GM has been unsuccessful in its attempts to get the 4.3
> engine to stop shaking. The inherent failure of the 4.3 engine design
> was addressed by GM when it released its smaller 4.8L (295 cubic inch)
> V-8 engine. The 4.8L V-8 is 30 cubic inches (11%) larger than the 4.3L
> V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the
> 4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy.
I don't agree with you here. I wouldn't call the 4.3 a "silky smooth" motor,
but both of mine are plenty quiet and the one in my '03 S-10 is a darned
sight quieter and smoother than what they put in the Colorados and Canyons.
What moderate amount of vibration is present at idle goes away at higher
speeds...pretty much anything above standing and idling. Again more than I
can say for the Colorados and Canyons.
> My 4.3 was mechanically-noisy, especially so after a cold start, when
> the engine would race uncontrollably at a high idle until it warmed up.
> The engine also vibrated badly, particularly in the 1200 to 2000 RPM
> range. To my dismay, a GM service bulletin revealed that this was a
> "1200 RPM Shake" and that this severe vibration was considered to be
> normal operation for the 4.3. The engine speed compensation never worked
> when the air conditioner was operating, so the engine would buck and
> jerk when shifting gears when the compressor was engaged. When the truck
> was stopped in traffic, the compressor would drag RPMs down to the point
> of nearly killing the engine. I would either have to speed up the engine
> by pressing down on the gas pedal or turn off the AC when stopped in
> traffic. The dealer was never able to fix this problem.
Sounds like your truck had other problems. A friend of mine has a similar
GMC and it doesn't have this trouble at all. Yes, it is a 4.3 paired with a
5 speed.
> My overall feeling is that the 4.3 Vortec V-6 is a piece of crap. I
> would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6
> story to tell.
It really sounds like you got burned. I think most on this group would join
me in saying that the 4.3 is a good engine, if underpowered in the full size
truck department. But I'm not speaking for anyone else, nor am I trying to.
William The Guesser
One-Shot Scot
news:2ldfniF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
> news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
> My overall feeling is that the 4.3 Vortec V-6 is a piece of crap. I
> would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec
>V-6 story to tell.
<<Anyone buying a full-sized truck with a mid-sized motor gets what they
deserve. I have a S-10 with the 4.3L and it is a great combo. Yes they
shake because they are unbalance, but it's a truck. Pull your tampon
out. Trade it in and get the Toyota you've been really wanting. Big
Chris>>
Although my original 160HP 1990 4.3 lacked jackrabbit power, it was
adequate, particularly with the 5-speed as opposed to an automatic. The
two replacement 200HP 4.3 engines had more than enough power and
required shifting from overdrive down to 4th gear only on steeper
grades. My complaint is that I had mechanical problems with the first
two 4.3s and the third 4.3 was on the verge of going bad when I sold it.
And it's funny that you should mention my getting a Toyota. My 1978 20R
Toyota HiLux pickup had 185 thousand nearly trouble free miles on it
when I sold it in 1990. I never did any work on the engine, the 5-speed
transmission needed only one clutch, and I required no rear end or
suspension repairs. The problem with the Toyota was that the truck just
wasn't big enough. Even the new "full size" Toyota Tundra does not have
a full size bed.
Yes, I would really rather have a Toyota. However, I am -- so far --
very happy with my 2004 Silverado Work Truck, which has a 4.8L V-8 and
4-speed automatic transmission. On the downside, the gas mileage that I
have gotten with this truck has been hovering between 15.3 and 18.4 MPG,
even with the standard 3.42 differential. I am inclined to think that
this truck would actually deliver its 20 MPG highway rating if I ever
took it on an extended trip.
One-Shot Scot
news:7vhIc.72866$P7.31357@pd7tw3no...
One-Shot Scot wrote:
> The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact,
> it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of
> the 5.7L (350 cubic inch) V-8, to create a 4.3L (265 cubic inch) V-6.
> But the problem with this design is that the 5.7 V-8 is a balanced
> engine (two pistons up/two pistons down -- two piston up/two pistons
> down), but the 4.3 V-6 is an unbalanced engine (two pistons up/one
> piston down -- two pistons down/one piston up). This V-6 imbalance is
> made worse due to the massive size and huge displacement of the 5.7L
> pistons and GM has been unsuccessful in its attempts to get the 4.3
> engine to stop shaking. The inherent failure of the 4.3 engine design
> was addressed by GM when it released its smaller 4.8L (295 cubic inch)
> V-8 engine. The 4.8L V-8 is 30 cubic inches (11%) larger than the 4.3L
> V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the
> 4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy.
<<Well, if nothing else, you are certainly "un-informed" about the
design of the 4.3 Vortec engine. They have had balance shafts for years
now and are a good running, and smooth running engines.>>
I certainly didn't mean to imply that GM made no attempt to balance the
4.3 V-6 engine. However, in spite of GMs best efforts to balance the
1990-1995 versions of this engine, it still had a pronounced 1200 RPM
shake, as well as a more moderate shake at 500 RPM. I used to watch the
floor-mounted manual transmission shifter shake and shake when the truck
was in neutral.
One-Shot Scot
news:bFhIc.636$RD4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
> feel that the 4.3L Vortec V-6 is possibly the biggest lemon that any
> vehicle manufacturer has ever palmed off its unsuspecting customers.
<<I have a 95 astro van awd (with the 4.3 V6 vortec 190HP). Bought it
used 2 years ago with about 220,000km on it. It ran great. Took it to
smog and passes with flying colours. Today it still runs great. Smooth,
quiet, no
complaints with the engine whatsoever. Excellent power from stop (I was
actually quite impressed how snappy it is). No oil burning, no smoke, no
ticking, no drips. The mileage isn't the greatest at about 20mpg
(canadian)
but it was cheap and I needed the room (8 people). I know the RWD vans
get better mileage. I have driven it about 60,000km. My vote gives a
yeah to GM for the 'turn the key and it goes' worry free driving on this
one (and on my 2.8L with 300,000km and on my 2.2L with 325,000km) I have
own imports and had problems with burning oil at much less mileage and
connectors corroding out.>>
Does it have a smog pump? I have looked under the hoods of a couple of
mid-90s 4.3 V-6 California S-10 pickups and they did not have smog
pumps. There was a bracket for connecting a smog pump, but the pump was
not there. The owners said that they did not remove the smog pump.
I always wondered why my full size 1990 C1500 pick up needed a smog pump
with its 4.3 V-6 and the S-10s apparently did not. Maybe the Astor Vans
were also able to pass smog without a pump.
One-Shot Scot
news:10f3djm...@corp.supernews.com...
That he and several others have had good luck with Vortec 4.3L V-6.
And....
> I wonder if Scot has been using the vehicle beyond its design spec.
No. I always drove the truck like a little old lady on her way to a
church Bingo game. The truck never pulled a trailer and it never carried
a load in its bed exceeding 800 pounds.
One-Shot Scot
news:58gIc.18239$MN2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
<<Sorry to hear of One-Shot's problems with the 4.3. I have a 2003
Savana (7,200 lb GVW) van with the 4.3. I only have had it for 18 mos.,
but it has been a great engine and great vehicle so far.>>
<<My engine is very smooth (balance shaft and enhanced mounts).>>
I'm glad to hear that GM has refined its 2003 4.3 V-6. The one that they
sold me in 1990 as well as the two Goodwrench rebuilts from the
1992-1995 era were not nearly as sophisticated as yours. I still feel
cheated that GM learned from its early 4.3 V-6 design mistakes while I
had to pay for them.
<<But what sold me on the engine was that it ought to be rugged, it can
get 20 mpg in a cargo van, and it develops peak torque (260 ft lb) at an
incredibly low 2,800 rpm. Right off idle, this engine has great torque,
feels like a large V8, just what I wanted in a truck. I believe the
large bore and stroke, combined with a cam profile, make this engine
exceptionally "torquey" for it's displacement and fuel economy. As a
comparison, the 4.8L V8 produces slightly more torque (285 lb ft), but
only at 4,000 RPM. The 4.3 has great "grunt" off the line with no fuss,
no muss.>>
And all this from the "standard" engine! I sincerely hope that you
continue to get good service from your 4.3.
I was so disgusted with my 4.3 V-6 experience that I gladly paid the
additional $945 to get the Vortec 4800 V-8 in my 2004 Silverado.
ronlin
other than normal maintenance through 190K miles. I have no complaints
with its performance, even when haulin 8 old railroad ties.
I traded it in on a 1995 S-10 in 2000 for a 1995 S-10 4X$ with 50K on
itand another 4.3L. It has also performed well with no problems through
120K. Hoping to get another 5 years out of it.
old bonehead
>
>I was so disgusted with my 4.3 V-6 experience that I gladly paid the
>additional $945 to get the Vortec 4800 V-8 in my 2004 Silverado.
>
>
>
Hi Scot,
Regardless of your previous poor experience with the 4.3L, you turned
around and bought a GM 4.8L -- I think that says something.
I do think GM is building some very good machines these days. The 4.8L
you have has a higher compression ratio (more efficient) than the 4.3L,
is balanced "naturally" (does not need a balance shaft), has aluminum
heads (better thermal transfer), shorter stroke, smaller bore, etc. It
is the next generation smaller truck engine, and I think you will like it.
I was torn between it and the 4.3L, but the 4.8L for cargo vans only
came with the higher GVW and did not have rack and pinion steering. It
was more "truckish",but when I did the balance sheet for my usage, the
4.3 with the higher axle ratio (MPG) just made more sense for me.
I think GM offers more engine/axle ratio combinations for the pick ups
than for the vans. For the vans, you can get the 4.3L with a high ratio
rear axle and rack and pinion steering, but if you go to the 4.8L, you
get R/B steering, lower rear axle ratios and higher GVW. It depends on
what you are doing with the truck,
Good luck with your new truck. I do think you will be happy. GM is
making some mighty fine trucks these days.
bonehead
"Doc"
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
That's funny, I just finished working on an 87' Astro with 332,000 miles on
it (4.3L/TH700R4), ALL original, and it purrs like a damn kitten, has great
compression on all cylinders, 50 psi of oil pressure and is quite smooth.
My wife's 98' Sonoma with a 4.3 is quite smooth and powerful as well.
Maybe the problem with your 4.3's wasn't the engine but was the hands that
were wrenching it.
Doc
>
>
Justin Spencer
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
That might be the case in your situation but personally I think you just got
a bunch of bad engines if that is even possible because I have the 1995
version of this very engine it has a bunch of miles on it (160k to be exact)
and it shows none of the symptoms you have described. Have had very little
trouble with the truck itself at all and none with the engine.
Justin
One-Shot Scot
news:JKqdnc4r74Y...@adelphia.com...
> "One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
> news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
> > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6
> > story to tell.
<<That's funny, I just finished working on an 87' Astro with 332,000
miles on it (4.3L/TH700R4), ALL original, and it purrs like a damn
kitten, has great compression on all cylinders, 50 psi of oil pressure
and is quite smooth.>>
<<My wife's 98' Sonoma with a 4.3 is quite smooth and powerful as
well.>>
<<Maybe the problem with your 4.3's wasn't the engine but was the hands
that were wrenching it. Doc>>
I can't argue with your success. Obviously, not all 4.3L Vortex V-6
engines are bad. But take a look at what this guy has to say:
GM 4.3 Liter Vortec - I am so disappointed with the quality of this
engine I will never buy another General Motors Product again
GM 4.3 Liter Vortec Is a piece of JUNK!
I am a 15 year ASC, and state of Michigan Master tech. I have been
teaching dealer tech's for the last 8 of those 10 years.
I have been driving S Series Pick ups's and Blazers sense I received my
drivers license back in 1983. I recently bought my first non TBI or
carburetor equipped 4.3 equipped vehicle. It is a 2003 Chevy S-10 4 door
pickup. You know, the latest, greatest Vin W Vortec pushrod engine. I am
so disappointed with the quality of this engine I will never buy another
General Motors Product again. Far less because of the inherent design
flaws right out of the box that have been able to stay with a design
that is near 10 years, but because of how stupid General Motors thinks
it's costumers really are!
My engine has the same problems that 80% of V6 and V8 Vortec engines
have. Its noisy and idles terribly! GM has been promising a fix for
years with no resolution. Carboned pistons causing clacking, improperly
metered lifters are noisy and to top it all off, a balance shaft torsion
problem that completes the engine noise cycle and vibration throughout
ALL operating ranges and engine speeds and conditions.
With as many millions of these ticking time bombs on the road, with no
resolution in sight, GM just shrugs its shoulders and says: "Hey, its a
pushrod motor, its supposed to be noisy." $27,000 for a vehicle with an
engine that sounds like it has 150,000 miles on it at 15,000 miles and
on. I guess they think that them telling us Vortec owners that "it poses
no longevity or performance issue" should appease our sense of concern.
Problem is IT DOESN'T! Of 5 dealerships, none could give me the time of
day, and GM costumer service? Lets just say, banging my head against the
wall would have been a more productive use of my time.
I pulled the motor out of my NEW TRUCK myself and found:
6 of 12 lifters defective. Improper valve preload on all 6 resulting in
a noisy valve train. Checked bleed down rate of all lifters, none of
which met GM's own Minimum Bleed down rate specification for this
application.
8 valve guides with at least .005" of movement.
7 valve springs out of square and ALL 12 with less than 50 lbs of
installed seat pressure.
Valve stem heights in variance of over .020" on a non adjustable valve
train.
.023" back lash on the balance shaft gears. OH MY GOD! No wonder it's so
noisy! After trying to match 16 sets of new shafts and gears, best I
could do was .008" and had to lap them in as well. Lucky for me ONE
local GM dealer let me strip old gears and shafts from old warranty
engines. They had exploded carcasses on hand. Where did those all come
from?
Left bank of the engine had a minimum of .006" piston to wall clearance
and 2 collapsed piston skirts, right bank had 1 collapsed skirt with
.005" on one cylinder. THATS 3 collapsed piston skirts total in a 6
cylinder engine.
If I didn't know it was an almost new engine, I'd swear it had at least
100,000 miles on it!
After an investment of $675.00 and a week and a half with the engine on
a stand, my engine sounds like it should after 16,000 miles. Its QUIET!
Question is, why couldn't GM do this in production? How many years have
they been having this problem? For as long as a balance shaft has been
inside the Vortec! What is the moral of the story?
GM has no regard for costumer care, or satisfaction. GM has no regard
for the faithful costumer and Joe lunchpail who is paying a note on a
truck that sounds like a piece of junk! I just wanted to share my engine
autopsy with your readers.
Any one want to join me in a class action law suit?
Victor G
Dearborn Michigan (home of Henry Ford and the Mustang)
One-Shot Scot
news:jenIc.19748$857....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> "One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
> news:y-WdnWNWO5-...@inreach.com...
> > "shiden_Kai" <violet-lighte...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> > news:7vhIc.72866$P7.31357@pd7tw3no...
> > the 4.3 V-6 engine. However, in spite of GMs best efforts to balance
> > the 1990-1995 versions of this engine, it still had a pronounced
1200
> > RPM shake, as well as a more moderate shake at 500 RPM. I used
> > to watch the floor-mounted manual transmission shifter shake and
> > shake when the truck was in neutral.
> >
>
> That might be the case in your situation but personally I think you
> just got a bunch of bad engines if that is even possible because
> I have the 1995 version of this very engine it has a bunch of miles
> on it (160k to be exact) and it shows none of the symptoms you have
> > described. Have had very little trouble with the truck itself at
all and
> none with the engine.
>
> Justin
<<That might be the case in your situation but personally I think you
just got a bunch of bad engines if that is even possible because I have
the 1995 version of this very engine it has a bunch of miles on it (160k
to be exact) and it shows none of the symptoms you have described. Have
had very little trouble with the truck itself at all and none with the
engine. Justin>>
I have been looking for the history of the 4.3L Vortec V-6 and their
inherent vibrations. So far, I have turned up the following on an
S-series page:
1988 Common: The 4.3l v6 engine was introduced.
1993 Common: The 4.3l v6 engine received an internal balance shaft
to reduce vibration.
My original 4.3L Vortec V-6 was produced in 1990 and my two Goodwrench
replacement engines were put in the truck in early 1996. My guess is
that both of my rebuilt 4.3L Vortec V-6 engines were pre-1993 models
because it is very unlikely that any later models would have needed to
be rebuilt. Therefore, my problems with the 1200 RPM shake were probably
inherent in all three engines.
http://www.mys10.com/downloads/s10_history.asp
Here is some information on GM's Vortec 4200 inline 6-cylinder engine:
"Sutter (Tom Sutter, Assistant Chief Engineer for GM's new Vortec 4200
Inline 6-cylinder engine) described the inherent smoothness of an inline
6-cylinder design. It has both primary and secondary balance. Primary
balance is when the crankshaft counterweights offset the weight of the
piston and rod. Secondary balance is when the movement of one piston
balances the movement of another. V6's have a secondary imbalance that
causes engine vibration. Adding a counter balance shaft can reduce this
imbalance, but that adds weight and complexity. The inline design was a
good choice. The new Vortec 4200 engine runs smoothly, quietly, and
quickly all the way to its 6200-rpm redline."
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/at_010424.htm
One-Shot Scot
One-Shot Scot wrote:
>
>I was so disgusted with my 4.3 V-6 experience that I gladly paid the
>additional $945 to get the Vortec 4800 V-8 in my 2004 Silverado.
<<Hi Scot, Regardless of your previous poor experience with the 4.3L,
you turned around and bought a GM 4.8L -- I think that says something.
Yes, I did buy another GM truck. I had only three choices for a full
size pickup: Dodge, Ford or Chevrolet/GMC. In spite of all the trouble
that I had with my 1990 Chevrolet C1500, I still prefer the ride and
handling characteristics of GM trucks.
<<I do think GM is building some very good machines these days. The 4.8L
you have has a higher compression ratio (more efficient) than the 4.3L,
is balanced "naturally" (does not need a balance shaft), has aluminum
heads (better thermal transfer), shorter stroke, smaller bore, etc. It
is the next generation smaller truck engine, and I think you will like
it.>>
I appreciate your telling me this. My decision to buy a new truck was
forced on me rather suddenly. In February, my 1990 4.3L V-6 failed smog
and was declared a gross polluter and I decided not to fix it. This gave
me until the end of April to find another truck before my registration
came due. A local Chevrolet dealer had a Silverado Work Truck with a
4.8L V-8, 4-speed automatic and 3.42 axle in stock and he was willing to
sell it at invoice price plus throw in a $500 loyalty certificate and a
bed liner. My credit was approved and I was able to drive the truck home
with nothing down and get a 60 month 0% GMAC loan.
Now, I am doing my research on the 4.8L V-8 after buying it.
<<I was torn between it and the 4.3L, but the 4.8L for cargo vans only
came with the higher GVW and did not have rack and pinion steering. It
was more "truckish",but when I did the balance sheet for my usage, the
4.3 with the higher axle ratio (MPG) just made more sense for me.>>
<<I think GM offers more engine/axle ratio combinations for the pick ups
than for the vans. For the vans, you can get the 4.3L with a high ratio
rear axle and rack and pinion steering, but if you go to the 4.8L, you
get R/B steering, lower rear axle ratios and higher GVW. It depends on
what you are doing with the truck,>>
<<Good luck with your new truck. I do think you will be happy. GM is
making some mighty fine trucks these days. bonehead>>
I think you're right. So far, the new truck is running great and I have
not had to take it back to the dealer for anything other than an oil
change.
Drumstick
St...@satx.rr.com.com says...
>
> "One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
> news:y-WdnWNWO5-...@inreach.com...
> > "shiden_Kai" <violet-lighte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7vhIc.72866$P7.31357@pd7tw3no...
> >
> > One-Shot Scot wrote:
> >
> > > The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact,
> > > it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of
> > > the 5.7L (350 cubic inch) V-8, to create a 4.3L (265 cubic inch) V-6.
> > > But the problem with this design is that the 5.7 V-8 is a balanced
> > > engine (two pistons up/two pistons down -- two piston up/two pistons
> > > down), but the 4.3 V-6 is an unbalanced engine (two pistons up/one
> > > piston down -- two pistons down/one piston up). This V-6 imbalance is
> > > made worse due to the massive size and huge displacement of the 5.7L
> > > pistons and GM has been unsuccessful in its attempts to get the 4.3
> > > engine to stop shaking. The inherent failure of the 4.3 engine design
> > > was addressed by GM when it released its smaller 4.8L (295 cubic inch)
> > > V-8 engine. The 4.8L V-8 is 30 cubic inches (11%) larger than the 4.3L
> > > V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the
> > > 4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy.
> >
> > <<Well, if nothing else, you are certainly "un-informed" about the
> > design of the 4.3 Vortec engine. They have had balance shafts for years
My 4.3L is in a '92 S10 extended cab and has 187,000 miles on it. The
distributor was replaced and that's it! Uses no oil and runs fine. I'd
buy another one tomorrow...in fact, if I get the money I'm going to
get another S10 and hopefully with a 4.3L.
Maybe it's the oil he uses.
--
Drum-
seeray
Wifes 1992 S-10 blazer 4.3 auto= 185k miles and it runs GREAT
My 1991 S-10 blazer 4.3 auto = 235k miles and it runs GREAT
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
> It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's
> poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this
> GM recall real??") With the exception of the GM passenger car diesels, I
> feel that the 4.3L Vortec V-6 is possibly the biggest lemon that any
> vehicle manufacturer has ever palmed off its unsuspecting customers. I
> am offering my negative experience and negative opinions of the 4.3
> Vortec V-6, but I would welcome any feedback.
>
> The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact,
> it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of
> the 5.7L (350 cubic inch) V-8, to create a 4.3L (265 cubic inch) V-6.
> But the problem with this design is that the 5.7 V-8 is a balanced
> engine (two pistons up/two pistons down -- two piston up/two pistons
> down), but the 4.3 V-6 is an unbalanced engine (two pistons up/one
> piston down -- two pistons down/one piston up). This V-6 imbalance is
> made worse due to the massive size and huge displacement of the 5.7L
> pistons and GM has been unsuccessful in its attempts to get the 4.3
> engine to stop shaking. The inherent failure of the 4.3 engine design
> was addressed by GM when it released its smaller 4.8L (295 cubic inch)
> V-8 engine. The 4.8L V-8 is 30 cubic inches (11%) larger than the 4.3L
> V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the
> 4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy.
>
shiden_Kai
> I can't argue with your success. Obviously, not all 4.3L Vortex V-6
> engines are bad. But take a look at what this guy has to say:
> GM 4.3 Liter Vortec - I am so disappointed with the quality of this
> engine I will never buy another General Motors Product again
> GM 4.3 Liter Vortec Is a piece of JUNK!
> I am a 15 year ASC, and state of Michigan Master tech. I have been
> teaching dealer tech's for the last 8 of those 10 years.
This guy is crazy. He's taking his "one motor" experience and thinks
that he can condemn the entire line of 4.3 engines. I actually have worked
on these engines non-stop since their inception. Can he say that? I will
admit that the first few years of 4.3's were pretty lousy engines. But we
literally do "nothing" in terms of major mechanical work to these engines.
As I said before, the intake manifold gaskets are a problem. Engine oil
cooler lines are a problem too, but I don't consider this part of the
engines
mechanical design. The only other problem that I've encountered (and
very rarely) is a rattling noise that occurs around 2100 rpm. There is
a bulletin out on this, and the fix is to install a newly designed timing
chain tensioner assembly. The noise is actually coming from the balance
shaft gear and the chain tensioner addresses this problem. But we
rarely replace engines, or do head work or bottom end work. And even
though I work at a dealership, we see many trucks that are well beyond
warranty mileage.
Ian
One-Shot Scot
One-Shot Scot wrote:
BOTTOM LINE:
"I will admit that the first few years of 4.3's were pretty lousy
engines."
Thank you!
William R. Walsh
Hey One-Shot, give these a listen:
http://greyghost.dyndns.org/43v6/index.html
They're quick and dirty and a little bassy but that's how my laptop heard
it...sounds pretty good, huh? That one's got about 14,900 miles on it so
far.
My dad has loud exhaust on his truck, so there's really not much you can
hear of the motor *itself*.
I'm rather surprised at how you've kept on "knocking" the 4.3 especially
after most of this group has told you how *good* the vast majority are. It's
almost reaching into the troll zone, bud. If you don't like it, you don't
have to buy a truck with it and you didn't. Enough said, really.
For anyone who else who might know or give my samples a listen...what's that
soft whine the 4.3 makes? Any truck I've ever seen with it or a 350 seems to
do it... I'm not worried about it, but what makes that sound?
William The Guesser (wondering why he doesn't have a life...)
shiden_Kai
>
> BOTTOM LINE:
>
> "I will admit that the first few years of 4.3's were pretty lousy
> engines."
>
> Thank you!
See...this is where folks like you end up being
real assholes when it comes to having a reasonable
conversation. You condemn the early 4.3's...good for
you, so you got screwed a number of years back. That's
not the case anymore, as numerous people on these
newsgroups can attest to. Then, in order to "make your
case" you quote some guy who is pissed off about his
"late model" 4.3. I tell you that the late model (ever
since they had balance shafts) 4.3's have been a
model engine. All you can do is pull out the statement
that "early" 4.3's had their problems. That was a
long time ago, and most engines have their share of
problems early in their development cycle.
Too bad....I guess you were stupid enough to be
GM's guinea pig when the 4.3 was first brought out.
And now, you've decided that you will be their
guinea pig by buying a 4.8 engine. Wait till the
piston knock starts happening...man, will you be
whining about it! Go buy a Ford or Dodge if
it will make you happier.
Ian
"Doc"
"William R. Walsh" <newsg...@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com>
wrote in message news:oiHIc.42748$WX.13865@attbi_s51...
William,
It's the serpentine belt assembley just winding up.
Damn dude, now I wanna run out and take some sound clips of my girl!
Neighbors'd be pissed though if I started revving her @ 11:30 pm. Maybe
tomorrow.
Doc
>
>
One-Shot Scot
So, are you for or against General Motors? Did I get screwed twice? Once
when I bought my 1990 4.3L V-6 and again when I bought my 2004 4.8L V-8?
My experience with early, bad 4.3L V-6 engines wasn't "a long time ago",
because I drove my 1990 Scottsdale until the end of April 2004. When I
made my original post, I asked for opinions. So far, I have found a few
people who agree that the early 4.3L V-6 engines weren't all that great.
But anyone reading the replies to my post can plainly see that my bad
experience is the exception and that the vast majority of 4.3L V-6
owners are very happy with this engine.
As for the guy that I quoted, I don't think that he ever got his class
action law suit off the ground. And even though I had lots of problems
with my 1990 Scottsdale, I never said: "GM 4.3 Liter Vortec - I am so
disappointed with the quality of this engine I will never buy another
General Motors Product again." I was able to see that GM has made
tremendous improvements in its new trucks and I bought another one.
It is my understanding that the 4.3L V-6 made its debut in 1988, so my
1990 Scottsdale would have been made during this engine's 3rd year of
production. It wasn't until 1993 that the 4.3L V6 engine received an
internal balance shaft to reduce vibration, as well as some other
improvements.
The 4.8L V-8 appears to have made its debut in 1999, so my 2004
Silverado would have been made during this engine's 6th year of
production. Hopefully, I waited long enough for GM to get the bugs out
of this engine.
http://www.mys10.com/downloads/s10_history.asp
http://www.hpsalvage.com/lt1.htm
One-Shot Scot
news:88l7f05fv15pss9h2...@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:16:59 -0700, "One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com>
wrote something wonderfully witty:
<snip>
>
>My experience with early, bad 4.3L V-6 engines wasn't "a long time
ago",
>because I drove my 1990 Scottsdale until the end of April 2004. When I
>made my original post, I asked for opinions. So far, I have found a few
>people who agree that the early 4.3L V-6 engines weren't all that
great.
>But anyone reading the replies to my post can plainly see that my bad
>experience is the exception and that the vast majority of 4.3L V-6
>owners are very happy with this engine.
<<I had a `90 version that went through the valve guides & seals right
quick. Damn thing looked like a skeeter fogging machine when it was
first started up.. Didn't prevent me from buying an `02 Astro & `02
S-10 with the 4.3 engine in both of em. I have 50K on the S-10 & 21K on
the Astro. No engine problems in either one.>>
Yeah, that 1988-1993 4.3L V-6 engine was no prize and I was thoroughly
disgusted with the three of them that I suffered with.
richa...@excite.calm
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, One-Shot Scot wrote:
>It is my understanding that the 4.3L V-6 made its debut in 1988, so my
>1990 Scottsdale would have been made during this engine's 3rd year of
>production. It wasn't until 1993 that the 4.3L V6 engine received an
>internal balance shaft to reduce vibration, as well as some other
>improvements.
GM was using the 4.3L in their G-bodies a couple of years prior.
Imagine that blender-motor in a passenger car. ick.
RM
William Walsh
> It's the serpentine belt assembley just winding up.
Thanks for the information, as always.
> Damn dude, now I wanna run out and take some sound clips of my girl!
Go and do it! Life's too short to put things you want to do off...
> Neighbors'd be pissed though if I started revving her @ 11:30 pm. Maybe
> tomorrow.
I have very forgiving neighbors (with their own vehicle collections,
too). That's probably the only reason why I get away with having so
many vehicles on my property... :-)
My brother, dad and myself all smoked out the neighborhood one night
around 11 while fiddling with an old Buick and injector cleaner. Not
only did we make a LOT of smoke, but the car had virtually no muffler
left.
William The Guesser
shiden_Kai
> So, are you for or against General Motors? Did I get screwed twice?
> Once when I bought my 1990 4.3L V-6 and again when I bought my 2004
> 4.8L V-8?
I'm neither for or against GM. I am simply a technician
who happens to work in a GM dealership, and I like
to come by the newsgroups and contribute what I can.
Your 4.8 v-8 is a good engine, but I have little doubt that
when the piston slap starts occurring, or you have a right
cylinder head gasket split, or the water pump gaskets go
south, that you will be upset that you got a "lemon".
> The 4.8L V-8 appears to have made its debut in 1999, so my 2004
> Silverado would have been made during this engine's 6th year of
> production. Hopefully, I waited long enough for GM to get the bugs out
> of this engine.
There haven't been that many bugs to begin with. GM
has made what appears to be a great engine. The same
engine is running in light trucks, Corvettes, the CTS,
Trailblazers...etc. It comes in all aluminium configurations,
cast iron block, cast iron heads configurations, and cast
iron block, aluminium head configurations. I think it will
be around for a while.
Ian
TM
130,000 miles on it. I have done two tune ups and regular oil changes and I
have not had nary one problem out of it. The joker never has failed to
start, except for dead batteries and forgetting to put the ignition
interrupting plug in before starting. Oh yea and no 1200 rpm shake either
to speak of. 90% of my miles are highway miles.
JMHO and Experience
TM
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
news:qrOdnRGmp-9...@inreach.com...
One-Shot Scot
One-Shot Scot wrote:
> So, are you for or against General Motors? Did I get screwed twice?
> Once when I bought my 1990 4.3L V-6 and again when I bought my 2004
> 4.8L V-8?
<<I'm neither for or against GM. I am simply a technician who happens
to work in a GM dealership, and I like
to come by the newsgroups and contribute what I can.>>
<<Your 4.8 v-8 is a good engine, but I have little doubt that when the
piston slap starts occurring, or you have a right cylinder head gasket
split, or the water pump gaskets go south, that you will be upset that
you got a "lemon".>>
Eventually, all engines will wear out, but some of them wear out before
they reach 100 thousand miles. That is why I bought the GM 60-month, 100
thousand mile warranty. I hope that this turns out to be a bad
investment and that I never need to use it.
After keeping my 1990 Scottsdale for 14 years and 219 thousand miles, I
decided to never again drive a truck that is out of warranty. I even
went so far as to get the GM credit card which gives 5% credit toward
the purchase of new General Motors vehicles. This card will
theoretically allow me to buy a new truck with a $2000 down payment.
My 4.8L V-8 2004 Silverado will never pull a trailer and will never haul
a load (including passengers and cargo) heavier than 1000 pounds. This
truck will never be lugged down, driven at full throttle or under heavy
duty conditions (such as mountainous dirt roads) or used as a taxi or
delivery vehicle. This truck will have its oil changed every 3000 miles
and it will be serviced according to the manufacturers recommendations.
Under these relatively light duty conditions, how long should it take
for problems such as piston slap, right cylinder head gasket split, or
failure of water pump gaskets to occur?
> The 4.8L V-8 appears to have made its debut in 1999, so my 2004
> Silverado would have been made during this engine's 6th year of
> production. Hopefully, I waited long enough for GM to get the bugs out
> of this engine.
<<There haven't been that many bugs to begin with. GM has made what
appears to be a great engine. The same engine is running in light
trucks, Corvettes, the CTS, Trailblazers...etc. It comes in all
aluminium configurations, cast iron block, cast iron heads
configurations, and cast iron block, aluminium head configurations. I
think it will be around for a while. Ian>>
I hope you're right.
46...@mydeja.com
<devi...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I have a 95 astro van awd (with the 4.3 V6 vortec 190HP). Bought it used 2
>years ago with about 220,000km on it. It ran great. Took it to smog and
>passes with flying colours. Today it still runs great. Smooth, quiet, no
>complaints with the engine whatsoever. Excellent power from stop (I was
>actually quite impressed how snappy it is). No oil burning, no smoke, no
>ticking, no drips. The mileage isn't the greatest at about 20mpg (canadian)
>but it was cheap and I needed the room (8 people). I know the RWD vans get
>better mileage. I have driven it about 60,000km.
>My vote gives a yeah to GM for the 'turn the key and it goes' worry free
>driving on this one (and on my 2.8L with 300,000km and on my 2.2L with
>325,000km)
>I have own imports and had problems with burning oil at much less mileage
>and connectors corroding out.
>>
I have a 92 GMC Safari. All wheel drive, extended. With a 4.3. It has
around 145000 mile on it. Some things in the van needed replaced over time.
New fuel system, redone air conditioner. Front and back units. Some
gaskets. On the back Dutch doors. The only engine parts that needed d
replacement were the alternator, and a knock sensor. It runs great!! I
like the engine. I also have a 91 S-10 with a 2.8, with 197000 miles.
"Doc"
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
>
> My 4.8L V-8 2004 Silverado will never pull a trailer and will never haul
> a load (including passengers and cargo) heavier than 1000 pounds. This
> truck will never be lugged down, driven at full throttle or under heavy
> duty conditions (such as mountainous dirt roads) or used as a taxi or
> delivery vehicle. This truck will have its oil changed every 3000 miles
> and it will be serviced according to the manufacturers recommendations.
Well why the shit didn't you buy a Hon-duh Accord or a goddamn Saturn Ion if
you're going to drive your truck like a passenger vehicle?
Doc
seeray
wont be too much trouble could you get me the GM part number for the
Tensioner that you speak of so I can replace mine and see if that takes care
of my rattle
Thank you
Stevenews:r4FIc.1448$od7.371@pd7tw3no...
Mike Levy
wrote:
>Hey Shiden_Kai, I have a 91 4.3 and it rattles at about 2100 rpm. If it
>wont be too much trouble could you get me the GM part number for the
>Tensioner that you speak of so I can replace mine and see if that takes care
>of my rattle
>Thank you
>Steve
Steve, I don't think the tensioner was on the earlier models, Ian can
confirm that though...
shiden_Kai
> Steve, I don't think the tensioner was on the earlier models, Ian can
> confirm that though...
You are right, Mike. It's only for the 96 models and up.
Rattle Noise in Engine (Install Timing Tensioner Kit) #03-06-01-024B - (Mar
4, 2004)
Rattle Noise In Engine (Install Timing Tensioner Kit)
1996-2003 Chevrolet Astro, Blazer, Express, S-10, Silverado
1996-2003 GMC Jimmy, Safari, Savana, Sierra, Sonoma
1996-2001 Oldsmobile Bravada
with 4.3L V6 Engine (VINs W, X -- RPOs L35, LU3)
This bulletin is being revised to change warranty information. Please
discard Corporate Bulletin Number 03-06-01-024A (Section 06 --
Engine/Propulsion System).
Condition
Some customers may comment on a rattle-type noise coming from the engine at
approximately 1800 to 2200 RPMs.
Cause
The spark, rattle-type noise may be caused by torsional vibration of the
balance shaft.
dsheppar1
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
> <<Sorry to hear of One-Shot's problems with the 4.3. I have a 2003
> Savana (7,200 lb GVW) van with the 4.3. I only have had it for 18 mos.,
> but it has been a great engine and great vehicle so far.>>
>
> <<My engine is very smooth (balance shaft and enhanced mounts).>>
>
> I'm glad to hear that GM has refined its 2003 4.3 V-6. The one that they
> sold me in 1990 as well as the two Goodwrench rebuilts from the
> 1992-1995 era were not nearly as sophisticated as yours. I still feel
> cheated that GM learned from its early 4.3 V-6 design mistakes while I
> had to pay for them.
>
> <<But what sold me on the engine was that it ought to be rugged, it can
> get 20 mpg in a cargo van, and it develops peak torque (260 ft lb) at an
> incredibly low 2,800 rpm. Right off idle, this engine has great torque,
> feels like a large V8, just what I wanted in a truck. I believe the
> large bore and stroke, combined with a cam profile, make this engine
> exceptionally "torquey" for it's displacement and fuel economy. As a
> comparison, the 4.8L V8 produces slightly more torque (285 lb ft), but
> only at 4,000 RPM. The 4.3 has great "grunt" off the line with no fuss,
> no muss.>>
>
> And all this from the "standard" engine! I sincerely hope that you
> continue to get good service from your 4.3.
>
> I was so disgusted with my 4.3 V-6 experience that I gladly paid the
> additional $945 to get the Vortec 4800 V-8 in my 2004 Silverado.
>
it just passed 197,000. I have done all the maintenance on it like the
manual says. I have had to replace the alt. twice and the water pump once,
thats it besides the maint. items. Never had to do a thing to the tranny
eather other than regular service. I wish they would put one in the
Colorado/Canyon then I would seriously consider buying one.
Milt
> Condition
> Some customers may comment on a rattle-type noise
> coming from the engine at approximately 1800 to 2200 RPMs.
>
> Cause
> The spark, rattle-type noise may be caused by torsional
> vibration of the balance shaft.
Boy howdy. I've been chasing that noise since immediately after having the
intake manifold resealed. It occurred on the first cold start thereafter and
has continued since. Up until just recently, it would present itself after a
couple blocks of light throttle and persist unless taken to highway speeds for
about 4 miles. Then it'd fade until the next cold start. Seems to be
amplifying now. Only occurs when the truck ('95 1500, 2WD, 4.3L V-6, 173k,
bought new and otherwise pristine) is in gear and moving. Not in neutral,
can't load it on the brake, don't get it with the rear wheels off the ground
and spinning at any speed / in any gear. Ergo -> impossible to isolate.
Sounds almost like a lifter noise, but only happens in gear and moving.
The dealer that did the manifold reseal shrugs shoulders. Other dealer
troubleshoots, yanks $400, then shrugs shoulders.
The thing is making me nuts. It's like a water torture. Clack-clack-clack.
Arrrrggggh.
You've given hope. Thanks. Would you know of any further reading,
troubleshooting steps or spirit dance I could perform to confirm the
diagnosis?
Milt
shiden_Kai
> You've given hope. Thanks. Would you know of any further reading,
> troubleshooting steps or spirit dance I could perform to confirm the
> diagnosis?
This is hard noise to figure out. What I can tell you is that
it sounds almost exactly like a catalytic convertor that is
coming apart inside. Kinda that tinny exhaust rattle. Guys
that have heard a noisy cat will know what I mean. Then,
when you get under the vehicle and listen with a stethoscope,
you can hear the noise coming from the oil pan area of the
engine. It's a rare condition, I think we've only run into
a couple of them in the last 3 years.
Ian
Mike Levy
I think mine has the timing chain tensioner rattle. I replaced the
belt tensioner thinking that was the problem. It was shaking like
crazy with the engine running, so I figured that was it. Still have
the rattle. This is not an issue that can be catostrophic to the
engine if not repaired, is it? Hoping not, I don't have the money to
drop on a repair like that.
Milt
"shiden_Kai" wrote:
> This is hard noise to figure out. What I can tell you is that
> it sounds almost exactly like a catalytic convertor that is
> coming apart inside. Kinda that tinny exhaust rattle. Guys
> that have heard a noisy cat will know what I mean. Then,
> when you get under the vehicle and listen with a stethoscope,
> you can hear the noise coming from the oil pan area of the
> engine. It's a rare condition, I think we've only run into
> a couple of them in the last 3 years.
Thanks kindly for the input. This noise sounds 'xactly like a lifter gone bad
... which I'd almost prefer. T'ain't, tho. No noise at any rpm unless it's
rolling down the road and in gear. Varies with engine speed, tho I can't tell
if it's valve-train speed or crank speed. My tachometer ears have gone south
in my old age. Most intense in the 1700 - 2200 rpm range under light
throttle. It
Got a wild hair today and changed the oil to a wildly different blend and
viscosity, looking for some change, any change. It did change the volume
some, and now minimizes after being on the road a bit, as it did originally.
Bueno. Will build on that.
Mike Powers
the rock shield. Also seen the rock shields loose.
shiden_Kai
> I think mine has the timing chain tensioner rattle. I replaced the
> belt tensioner thinking that was the problem. It was shaking like
> crazy with the engine running, so I figured that was it. Still have
> the rattle. This is not an issue that can be catastrophic to the
> engine if not repaired, is it? Hoping not, I don't have the money to
> drop on a repair like that.
Not at all. It's simply annoying. All you are hearing is
backlash between the two gears (cam and balance shaft).
The tensioner kit simply keeps the cam chain from flopping
around and exaggerating the gear backlash noise.
Ian
Eightupman
when I am not paying attention and put the 87 octane in. My truck thrives
on the 89 octane, and the noise magically goes away with better gas in
it...103K miles and chugging towards either a trade in or a V-8
conversion...
"Milt" <spam...@yoma.com> wrote in message
news:z2hNc.1033$mg6.482@fed1read02...
"Doc"
"Eightupman" <eight...@newemail.com> wrote in message
news:dtCOc.226314$2o2.11...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Hey..got this noise in my 1996 V-6 too. It does exactly what you
describe,
> when I am not paying attention and put the 87 octane in. My truck thrives
> on the 89 octane, and the noise magically goes away with better gas in
> it...103K miles and chugging towards either a trade in or a V-8
> conversion...
If it goes away with the 89 octane you're hearing spark knock which has
nothing to do with the timing chain fix Ian mentioned above in this string.
I'd suggest having a closer look-see at the EGR, and maybe a good top-end
cleaner as well.
Doc
Eightupman
looking at the dregs of the message. I figured that had been talked about
previously after I hastily posted my message...
""Doc"" <no...@nope.com> wrote in message
news:89WdnbhgerA...@adelphia.com...
jer...@gmail.com
Stormin Mormon
the oil to delay needing a ring job? Marvel
Mystery oil or some like that? What have you
tried?
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Steve W.
running fast.
The 4.3 is nothing more than a 5.7 (350) that they removed two cylinders
from. They are a good engine but they have the same wear areas.
The seals can be replaced without tearing the engine down. Just need to
pull the valve covers.
--
Steve W.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
seals (and possibly worn guides). The seals can be replaced without
removing the heads and os a good place to start.
troy...@gmail.com
troy...@gmail.com
troy...@gmail.com
Steve W.
That ABS is EASY to defeat. I shut down the ABS on my 94 and the 97. The
02 still works and it's MUCH better than the earlier units.
--
Steve W.
dillon...@gmail.com
Stormin Mormon
> Damn that sucks I drive a 99 Colorado edition Chevy blazer LS with 4x4 with 192,000 miles on the whole vehicle and it still runs strong. But I well admit I have the same problem with the A/C so I got some 0GAUGE car amp wire and grounded out the battery and alternator problem solved. The A/C compresser went out so I gotta fix that. Other then that it's a great reliable vehicle took it from Albuquerque nm to denver Colorado $300 in gas there and back so I don't know what kind of gas mileage that is
>
with it. The AC compressor on mine is up
top, and fairly easy to change out. Did
it myself. Yes, I do have the necessary
EPA card for working on car AC.
--
Ashton Crusher
vehicles?
Stormin Mormon
Steve W.
--
Steve W.
Steve W.
see because it's buried behind a lot of crap) Causes a variety of
issues. Easy way to see if you have a problem is to clean a spot on the
alt. mount, start the engine, turn on all the accessories lights and
such. Then put a voltmeter between the battery ground and the spot you
cleaned. Anything over a few millivolts is a problem. (you will get a
bit simply because the path you create with the meter is shorter then
the main ground path through the block).
--
Steve W.
Stormin Mormon
>>
>> What makes you think you need an EPA card to work on your own vehicles?
>
>
> You do in the U.S. if you are going to work on the A/C legally.
>
Electrical and cleaning and drive belt
do not require EPA card.
bilz2765
and they arrest you, I get $10,000.00
FYI..
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Stormin Mormon
bilz2765
> On 2/18/2014 8:12 PM, bilz2765 wrote:
>> On 2/18/2014 6:02 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>> What makes you think you need an EPA card to work on your own
>>> vehicles?
>>>
>>
>> If you have a set of gauges in your hand, and I rat you out to the EPA,
>> and they arrest you, I get $10,000.00
>>
>> FYI..
>>
>
> Take lots of pictures.
>
But it is extremely serious that they don't mess around.
Ashton Crusher
>On 2/18/2014 6:02 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:42:39 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mine's a 98 model, and I've been pleased
>>> with it. The AC compressor on mine is up
>>> top, and fairly easy to change out. Did
>>> it myself. Yes, I do have the necessary
>>> EPA card for working on car AC.
>>
>> What makes you think you need an EPA card to work on your own
>> vehicles?
>
>It's air conditioning.... freon.....
only thing you would need an EPA card for is to buy R12. If your
intent is to resell the R12 you don't need a card to buy it but most
places still won't sell it to you.. ebay and craigslist sellers will
as long as you tell them you are buying it to resell.
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
working on your own car you don't need the EPA card or the gvt's
permission.
Ashton Crusher
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/18/2014 7:49 PM, Steve W. wrote:
>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>
>>> What makes you think you need an EPA card to work on your own vehicles?
>>
>>
>> You do in the U.S. if you are going to work on the A/C legally.
>>
>At least, to add or remove refrigerant.
>
>Electrical and cleaning and drive belt
>do not require EPA card.
releasing freon into the air exists separate from the need for the
card. It would be illegal to release in the air. If you get the
needed freon (which is very easy to do without a card even for R12,
and you don't need a card to get 134a) you can put it into your cars
system without needing an EPA card. You have allowed teh gvt to pull
the wool over your eyes.
Ashton Crusher
for would be venting freon into the air or buying R12 without a card
UNLESS they were buying it to resell.
Stormin Mormon
> If you are working on your own stuff you don't need any EPA card. The
> only thing you would need an EPA card for is to buy R12. If your
> intent is to resell the R12 you don't need a card to buy it but most
> places still won't sell it to you.. ebay and craigslist sellers will
> as long as you tell them you are buying it to resell.
>
If you can find where it says HO can work on their
own vehicles, I'd love to read it. Please send URL.
Stormin Mormon
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:12:27 -0500, bilz2765 <bil...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you have a set of gauges in your hand, and I rat you out to the EPA,
>> and they arrest you, I get $10,000.00
>>
>> FYI..
>
> for would be venting freon into the air or buying R12 without a card
> UNLESS they were buying it to resell.
sure love to follow the link. Might be true,
never know.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/19/2014 9:55 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:12:27 -0500, bilz2765 <bil...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you have a set of gauges in your hand, and I rat you out to the EPA,
>>> and they arrest you, I get $10,000.00
>>>
>>> FYI..
>>
>> That's totally untrue for DIYers. The ONLY thing DIYs could be cited
>> for would be venting freon into the air or buying R12 without a card
>> UNLESS they were buying it to resell.
>
>If you find that on the EPA web site, I'd
>sure love to follow the link. Might be true,
>never know.
Like anything else, it only hurts when you get caught.
Ashton Crusher
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/19/2014 9:47 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> If you are working on your own stuff you don't need any EPA card. The
>> only thing you would need an EPA card for is to buy R12. If your
>> intent is to resell the R12 you don't need a card to buy it but most
>> places still won't sell it to you.. ebay and craigslist sellers will
>> as long as you tell them you are buying it to resell.
>>
> http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/justfax.html#techcert
>If you can find where it says HO can work on their
>own vehicles, I'd love to read it. Please send URL.
think you can't. All you will find is requirements for technicians,
i.e. people who are paid by others to work on cars at a business, NOT
DIYers. What you can find is that they only time they mention DIY
requirements is in terms of buying the R12, at no other time do they
mention restrictions on DIY repairs.
Here's the part...below... note how they do all the can to try and
avoid saying they can't stop DIYers but as it says, all they can do is
*encourage* DIYers to not do it themselves. That's because you don't
need the EPA card to work on your own vehicle. You'll note that they
never say DIY is illegal because it's not. It's typical gvt BS talk,
trying to make you think you can't do something, just like the photo
radar tickets many cities send out make it sound like you HAVE to come
down and turn yourself in when you can throw the non-certified LETTER,
not ticket, in the trash. GVT at it's worst, ... sadly, that's what
most of gvt is these days.
There are several companies that sell DIY AC system to add to cars
that don't have them. I've not seen where a single one of those
companies tells their customers that they must have an EPA card to
install those systems into their cars. Do you think they would be
selling them without so advising them if a card was required for
people to work on their own cars? This is to install a complete
system, essentially the ULITMATE AC repair. Hard to imagine it would
be legal to install a complete system in your own car but illegal to
do a DIY repair to that same system a year later if the evaporator
valve when bad.
Of course, this is my opinion. If you think you need a license from
the gvt to work on your own vehicles that's your choice.
from http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/justfax.html
Sales Restrictions
Section 609 has long prohibited the sale of small cans of
ozone-depleting refrigerants to anyone other than a certified
technician. The sale of any size container of CFC-12 to anyone other
than certified technicians was prohibited under section 608 of the Act
beginning on November 14, 1994. This provision is intended to
discourage "do-it-yourselfers" who recharge their own air
conditioners. Such individuals often release refrigerant because they
typically do not have access to recovery/recycling equipment. The
Agency encourages "do-it-yourselfers" to bring their cars to certified
technicians who can properly fix air conditioners using approved
equipment. This avoids damage to A/C equipment by improper charging
and helps to protect the environment.
Ashton Crusher
freon you would need to take it to a shop for recovery. Once it's
empty from recovery you are free to fix your own car, you are free to
buy the 134a at Autozone, and you are free to charge it, all without
needing a card.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
yourself. Technically the recharge requires the card (with R12).
One thing that IS illegal is "topping up" any system with universal
refrigerent, or adding 134 to a 12 system without a total evacuation.
Mixing refrigerant under ANY cercumstance is illegal.
Drop-in replacement or "universal" refrigerants are only legal in a
totally evacuated system.
Ashton Crusher
might not be advisable with some of the refrigerant blends that are a
mix of different refrigerants, such as ES-12a since they don't "leak"
out their constituents proportional to their constituent proportions.
Some people claim, perhaps you believe it too, that a system that had
"lost freon" could not be topped up but must be repaired. That's not
true except in cases where the leak is so bad it all leaks out in a
matter of days or weeks. Many systems lose around 2% of their charge
per year. A 15 year old vehicle with no defects and no actual leaks
could be down 30% on charge and there would be nothing wrong, nor
illegal about "topping it up".
cl...@snyder.on.ca
basically copied your laws (your EPA carries a BIG stick) - Up here it
is illegal to top up a system without doing a thorough leak test (with
the system evacuated) and finding the system "tight". - which means it
is illegal to "top up" the system. You draw the system down and do a
vacuum integrity test. If there is no vacuum leak, or the test is
inconclusive, you charge it with nitrogen and do a "bubble test" of
all connections and any place that is suspect. If no problem is found,
you recharge the system, installing a leak detector dye. MOST shops
now also add a "sealer-conditioner" to condition the "O" rings and
seals and help prevent future leaks (and mabee fix minor leaks that
could not be found)
You are also required to document how much freon you take out and how
much you install in every system - which means you need a recovery
unit.
Like I said before - for a DIYer it only hurts when you get caught -
but like I also said - your EPA carries a BIG stick.
js72...@gmail.com
> It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's
> poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this
> GM recall real??") With the exception of the GM passenger car diesels, I
> feel that the 4.3L Vortec V-6 is possibly the biggest lemon that any
> vehicle manufacturer has ever palmed off its unsuspecting customers. I
> am offering my negative experience and negative opinions of the 4.3
> Vortec V-6, but I would welcome any feedback.
>
> The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact,
> it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of
> the 5.7L (350 cubic inch) V-8, to create a 4.3L (265 cubic inch) V-6.
> But the problem with this design is that the 5.7 V-8 is a balanced
> engine (two pistons up/two pistons down -- two piston up/two pistons
> down), but the 4.3 V-6 is an unbalanced engine (two pistons up/one
> piston down -- two pistons down/one piston up). This V-6 imbalance is
> made worse due to the massive size and huge displacement of the 5.7L
> pistons and GM has been unsuccessful in its attempts to get the 4.3
> engine to stop shaking. The inherent failure of the 4.3 engine design
> was addressed by GM when it released its smaller 4.8L (295 cubic inch)
> V-8 engine. The 4.8L V-8 is 30 cubic inches (11%) larger than the 4.3L
> V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the
> 4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy.
>
> Around 1990, GM was very concerned with producing a low-priced,
> full-size pickup which would deliver unusually-high gas mileage. This
> gas miser would then be used to offset GM's extremely profitable gas
> hogs. In order to accomplish its goal, GM introduced a C1500 pickup
> which would actually deliver its 18/24 MPG rating. This gas-saving,
> loss-leader was built around a 160 HP 4.3 Vortec V-6, with a Getrag
> 5-speed manual transmission and a standard 3.08 differential. The key to
> higher gas mileage figures, for all GM truck engines, was the Getrag
> 5-speed manual transmission, which delivered 15-20% higher gas mileage
> than trucks with automatic transmissions. GM was so anxious to produce
> this gas-saving, manual transmission vehicle that it offered a $1500
> "Manual Transmission Bonus Package" incentive, which lured in suckers,
> such as myself, who bought the atrocious 4.3 Vortec V-6.
>
> For some reason, my 1990 Chevrolet C1500 California 4.3 truck came with
> a smog pump, while other 1990 C1500 models with 5.0 and 5.7 V-8 engines
> did not have smog pumps. This smog pump robbed the 4.3 of power that it
> couldn't spare. My original 4.3 was the epitome of the old joke that GMC
> stands for Garage Man's Companion. My first complaint of constant 5th
> gear pinging was remedied by the dealer by retarding the spark. The
> pinging didn't go away and retarding the spark made the truck feel like
> it was pulling a trailer. I endured the pinging and low power for a
> month. Then, through a stroke of luck, a mechanic discovered a service
> bulletin which revealed that GM had released a new PROM for my vehicle
> which was designed to correct an engine flare that occurred when
> shifting between gears with a manual transmission. Even though my truck
> didn't have this shifting problem, the service manager reasoned that the
> new PROM might have other re-designed features which could fix the
> pinging. Fortunately, he was right.
>
> My 4.3 was mechanically-noisy, especially so after a cold start, when
> the engine would race uncontrollably at a high idle until it warmed up.
> The engine also vibrated badly, particularly in the 1200 to 2000 RPM
> range. To my dismay, a GM service bulletin revealed that this was a
> "1200 RPM Shake" and that this severe vibration was considered to be
> normal operation for the 4.3. The engine speed compensation never worked
> when the air conditioner was operating, so the engine would buck and
> jerk when shifting gears when the compressor was engaged. When the truck
> was stopped in traffic, the compressor would drag RPMs down to the point
> of nearly killing the engine. I would either have to speed up the engine
> by pressing down on the gas pedal or turn off the AC when stopped in
> traffic. The dealer was never able to fix this problem.
>
> After 106 thousand miles, the 4.3 Vortec V-6 developed a loud knocking
> noise and removal of the valve covers revealed that the engine had a dry
> side. One side of the engine was clean and gleaming with oil, while the
> other side was charred and blacked due to oil depravation. I had
> religiously changed the oil and filter every 2500 miles, but to no
> avail. The engine was ruined and would have to be replaced.
>
> I decided to go with a Goodwrench rebuilt engine, however, the dealer
> told me that the original 1990 4.3 had been replaced with an "improved"
> 200 HP version. I think he mentioned something about a "roller cam", but
> I'm not sure. In any event, the new engine did have more power, but it
> used more gas. Then, after 6000 miles, the Goodwrench engine spun a
> bearing and needed to be replaced under warranty.
>
> The next Goodwrench engine ran well enough for 110 miles, but it was
> starting to use oil. The "1200 RPM Shake" and air conditioning problems
> continued to plague this engine, as well. Finally, in February 2004, the
> vehicle was branded as a "Gross Polluter" and I was only able to get
> $1000 for it from a wholesaler. I disclosed this SMOG problem to the man
> who bought my truck, but because the truck scored well in the
> hydrocarbon section and had only failed one of the NOX tests, he thought
> that the problem would be relatively simple to fix -- maybe a loose
> vacuum hose or a bad catalytic converter. It turned out that he needed
> to spend over $1300 to get the truck smogged. Fortunately, he was still
> able to sell the truck for a modest profit.
>
> While I see others who have gotten 200 thousand miles of trouble-free
> miles from their 5.7 (350) engines, I had to suffer through three 4.3
> V-6 engines to obtain the same mileage. The money I saved on gas was
> more than offset by the downtime and expenses that I incurred while
> dealing with the deplorable 4.3 Vortec V-6.
>
> My overall feeling is that the 4.3 Vortec V-6 is a piece of crap. I
> would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6
> story to tell.
my 1991 s10 with a 4.3 vortec has a lot of power only problem I have when it cold it hard to start and it smoke wen I first crank it up in the morning iam getting ready to replace my 4.3 with a 6.0 liter engine I have a 700 r transmission behide my 4.3 all have to do is switch motors and wire harness
Stormin Mormon
worked well for me. I bought both of them about
100k miles. One lost to wreck about 275k, think
it was. The one I drove today starts and runs
fine, has about 238k miles.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
one in a full sized van. It al;ways sounded like it was revving it's
guts out (and it likely was - the old man had a HEAVY foot!!) It
worked well for him as a working truck untill he retired from working
as an electrician - and it served him as a travelling van for several
years after that, crossing the country several times. He sold it to a
guy who crossed the continent a few more times before having it
squashed between 2 transport trucks - and walking away from it. It was
never a particularly GOOD truck, but it was better than his previous
'69 GMC pickup by a wide margin, and it never gave any serious
problems. It was always a bit gutless, always a bit noisy, drank gas
like there was no tomorrow (as much as a 305 V8, anyway), but NEVER
let him down..
Personally, I've only owned 5 GMs. A '28, a '35,a ' '57 , a '67and a
'95 Trans Sport. Only owned the '57 for a couple of weeks. Never
drove the '35 in the 4 years I owned it, and I only owned the '67 Nova
for 3 weeks. The TransSport got me sworn off GMs for good.
None of them was a significant improvement over the '28,
mechanically!!
mccasl...@yahoo.com
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
>Hmmm this is interesting. My father bought a 2000 s10 with the 4.3 from someone @ 90,000 miles. I'm guessing a case like yours was just bad luck. I could be wrong though. We haven't had any problems with the engine itself- more so from poor quality parts on the truck breaking from wear and tear. My only complaint is that rarely I've notice some hesitation in low RPMs. However this went away after changing spark plugs and some fuel injector cleaner. I think the iridium spark plugs may be too harsh for the engine. I read on another forum that a guy install platinum plugs and he got a smoother response and the plugs didn't char up as quickly. Thats all i got. been driving the truck about 40,000 miles now.
the right heat range or they are not - but I had very poor results
with indium plugs in my PT cruiser. Certain platinums are just plain
trouble too - like Bosch . On a GM I'd run A/C Delco plugs - and
nothing else. If AC makes a dual plat for the application, I'd ude
them. The 4.3 is not a bad engine. It's "low tech" and robust. Not a
performance or economy engine.
Stormin Mormon
speed power problems. I got a fuel filter, but
the mechanic put it up in the air and there was
a pretty new one there. I'll try some fuel cleaner.
Advance Auto Parts alternator "Drive Works" has
failed several times, each less than a year. Last
time about two months. Free replacement, I'm on
number five (5) alternator.
imjr...@gmail.com
> "One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
> news:Ru2dnapNeei...@inreach.com...
> > miles from their 5.7 (350) engines, I had to suffer through three 4.3
> > V-6 engines to obtain the same mileage. The money I saved on gas was
> > more than offset by the downtime and expenses that I incurred while
> > dealing with the deplorable 4.3 Vortec V-6.
> >
> > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6
> > story to tell.
> >
> >
>
> deserve. I have a S-10 with the 4.3L and it is a great combo. Yes they
> shake because they are unbalance, but it's a truck. Pull your tampon out.
> Trade it in and get the Toyota you've been really wanting.
>
> Big Chris
Your reply made me spew my coffee all over my screen...Ah, nothing like a good morning chuckle!
Cheers and thanks for the memories!
Steve W.
didn't make it well past 150K still going strong. The chassis were
usually well rotted by the time I replaced the vehicle. I did sell one
still road worthy, it's still on the road at 250K My current 02 has 191K
on it. Still runs great. Has an emissions issue with the EVAP but not
engine related.
FYI the 4.3 is a 5.7 with 2 cylinders missing.
--
Steve W.
Stormin Mormon
> I've had around 10 different 4.3 powered vehicles. Haven't had one that
> didn't make it well past 150K still going strong. The chassis were
> usually well rotted by the time I replaced the vehicle. I did sell one
> still road worthy, it's still on the road at 250K
>
>
and driving another one, at 253 or so K. A bit sluggish
in the morning, I suspect it needs sparks and some fuel
injector cleaner.
My Tradesman work van is powered by a 4.3 with two
cylinders added.
highn...@gmail.com
> One-Shot Scot wrote:
> >
> > BOTTOM LINE:
> >
> > "I will admit that the first few years of 4.3's were pretty lousy
> > engines."
> >
> > Thank you!
>
> See...this is where folks like you end up being
> real assholes when it comes to having a reasonable
> conversation. You condemn the early 4.3's...good for
> you, so you got screwed a number of years back. That's
> not the case anymore, as numerous people on these
> newsgroups can attest to. Then, in order to "make your
> case" you quote some guy who is pissed off about his
> "late model" 4.3. I tell you that the late model (ever
> since they had balance shafts) 4.3's have been a
> model engine. All you can do is pull out the statement
> that "early" 4.3's had their problems. That was a
> long time ago, and most engines have their share of
> problems early in their development cycle.
>
> Too bad....I guess you were stupid enough to be
> GM's guinea pig when the 4.3 was first brought out.
> And now, you've decided that you will be their
> guinea pig by buying a 4.8 engine. Wait till the
> piston knock starts happening...man, will you be
> whining about it! Go buy a Ford or Dodge if
> it will make you happier.
>
> Ian
Funny thing about this discussion. It happened over 10 years ago. I have to wonder what all the gullible GM lovers out there think now?? The 4.3 did in fact turn out to be a real lemon. Hell the whole Vortec line is pure shit.
Stormin Mormon
4.3 engine. In both cases, the engine lasted longer than
the rest of the vehicle. My pewter Blazer went to about
275,000 miles and was lost to a collision (not my fault,
and the Blazer ran fine until that moment). The green
Blazer is about 260,000 miles and is starting to rust
out. Me, well, I'm pleased with the Vortec engine.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
. www.lds.org
.
.
Steve W.
parent engine (350 small block) in that regard. They just keep running.
--
Steve W.
