In the ‘80s, GM used a 4.3L 90-degree V6 in many different cars. I know that this engine is basically a small-block Chevy with two cylinders removed. This got me to wondering why they haven’t built a 90-degree V6 using the 5.3L or 6.0L LS engines?
M.S.
Jeff Smith: This is a great “what if” question. I remember a quote from Competition Eliminator racer Bill Maropulous who made a name for himself building 90-degree V6 Chevy engines in the ‘80s. When asked “What’s it take to build a Chevy V6 engine?”
His response was “A band saw and a heliarc.”
He was cutting up small-block Chevy cylinder heads to adapt them to the 90 degree Chevy V6–an enormous and complex task. The answer to your question is more about engineering. The first thing we have to talk about is 90-degree banked engines. This is the angle between the two banks of cylinders. With a four-stroke cycle of 720 degrees of rotation, a V8 will fire every 90 degrees. With a 90-degree bank angle, engine designers can create a common crankshaft pin sharing two rods per crank pin. When we reduce the number of cylinders to six, we now have 120 degrees of time between firing pulses. The smoothest running engine is a 60-degree bank angle engine, which allows a common crank pin. A smooth firing order of 120 degrees per cylinder won’t work with a 90-degree banked angle, necessitating a split pin crankshaft where the crank has individual journals for each rod that are paired, yet offset by 15 degrees in opposite directions to create the proper firing differential, creating firing impulses of 105 and 135. This unfortunately creates a vibration front to rear. Passenger car engines spend much of their time idling, which is when the amount of time between cylinder firings is the greatest, which makes this difference the most pronounced. Chevy engineers tweaked this by building their original 90-degree V6 engine with pin angles of 108 and 132. As you can imagine, the engine still vibrated. Since production engines spend a majority of their time at low engine speeds, it was my impression that these 90-degree band angle V6 designs had become outmoded unless the OE’s were willing to spend money on balance shafts that are both costly and don’t contribute to making the engine any more efficient.
Current engine technology demands that the engine idle so smooth that it is difficult to tell if the engine is running at all. This is the main reason why current LS engines use such wide lobe separation angles of 116 to 120 degrees for the camshafts. My guess would have been that GM would rather go with a smoother engine design, but when I did my research just to make sure, I made an interesting discovery:
Beginning in 2014, GM debuted a 4.3L 90-degree V6 for the Silverado trucks based on the LS engine architecture!
The engine is a direct injection engine running 11:1 compression and rated at 285 horsepower and 305 ft.-lbs. of torque. Good low-speed torque is probably the biggest reason they have retained the pushrod design. That and they can build these engines on similar production lines as the V8 engines. Note that the new GM V6 is much larger at 4.3L (262ci) than the 2014 Ford 3.7L (230ci) EcoTec normally aspirated 4-valve V6. The GM 4.3L uses the LS’s small-block Chevy-based 4.40-inch bore spacing. This allows them to build an engine with a big 3.92-inch bore. This leaves room for relatively big valves and, combined with the greater displacement, means it can make more towing torque at a lower engine speed. The GM 4.3L is rated at 305 ft.-lbs. of torque at 3,900 while the smaller Ford engine makes 278 ft.-lbs. at 4,000 rpm. While 27 ft.-lbs. might not sound like much, that’s 10 percent more torque. I then divided torque by cubic inches to compare the engines and the Ford is actually more efficient at 1.21 ft.-lbs./ci compared to the GM’s 4.3L effort of 1.16 ft.-lbs./ci. Because the GM engine is direct injected, its claimed fuel mileage is 1 mpg better than the Ford. This is probably due to the EcoTec3’s half-point higher compression ratio and improved direct injection combustion efficiency. In the real world, the larger GM engine will probably not beat the Ford in mileage only because the larger engine will probably still use more fuel in the daily grind.
So there are some technical tidbits inside the new GM 90-degree V6. This will probably only appear in trucks and SUV’s.
In my experience, in similar sized vehicles with comparable axle ratios, curb weight, transmission gearing, etc. A slightly larger, more powerful engine will be under less load when moving, which can actually give it a mileage benefit.
So I would expect the new 4.3L to have a slight edge on the 3.7L Ford. Back in the late 90’s, early 2000’s, I had a 98 K1500 GMC Sierra (regular cab, long bed) with 4.3L and my friend had a 2003 Ford F150 (also regular cab long bed) with a 4.0L, and even though the Ford made 10HP more and 6 less TQ over my 4.3L (200/260 vs. 210/254), my truck was slightly quicker and got marginally better mileage, even though it was older and lived a hard life. Mostly due to extra displacement and lower RPM of TQ (260@2800RPMs vs. 254@3750RPMs).
Just some personal experience from me.
When can I buy this as a crate engine?
I would love to see GM put a pair of twin scroll turbos on these engines. I am sure they would have to change to metallurgy of the block and or the cylinder bore sleeves similar to a diesel design to handle the turbos pressures so they don’t hand grenade on the customer. But that would be such a great engine for torque and fuel mileage.
Other than forged pistons and maybe lower compresion and good head gaskets it shouldn’t need anything else, I own a GMC Syclone and the long block’s only difference with 90’s V6 4.3s are hyperuetectic pistons and it handles 14.7 psi all day no problems.
the LV3 is good to go, it is as high strung as any GM engine ever
.500 cam, oversquare, etc
With greater hp & torque engines, I don’t know why they still insist on using 3:73 gears in the rear ends. I had a 400 hp engine with a 308 gear rear end. I hauled from 1000 to 2500 lbs on it regularly and didn’t even have overdrive, and still got 11mpg. City. And with the hp, it never bogged down. It pulled really hard. So why not use different rearend gears to improve mileage. I even had a car with a 2:42 gear. It got great mileage. Somebody needs to inform GM & Ford ,etc. , to use gear ratios to improve mileage.
L
On light trucks, you typically only see 3.73 and higher (numerical ratios) for towing applications these days. And, those 7, 8 and 9 speed transmissions do use gear ratios to improve mileage. The overall ratio of the axle and transmission together is what counts. To get that many speeds into a reasonable sized case, some of the ratios have to be underdrive, and some have to be overdrive.
I’m surprised this wasn’t the engine for the Colorado/Canyon.
Yeah, you and everybody else in the Western Hemisphere. This is a massive brain fart on GM’s part. Ya gotta wonder who’s running the truck division. The 4.3L is worlds better as a truck engine than the 3.6L.
(Shakes head.)
they use that DOHC 3.6 for all sort of cars, so that is a cost saving thing. That engine with twin turbo would be really good
BTW, Jeff, GM added a balance shaft to the old 4.3L Vortec in 1992. It’s located in the lifter valley and is driven off the cam. And with split journals offset by 30 degrees, the firing order is indeed even at 120 degrees.
I am interested in using this engine in a speedway class here in NZ but we have to use an aluminium or cast iron manifold. Do you know if there is one that’s suits this new LV3 configuration? Or even a supercharged version which I assume would have an aluminium manifold we could modify?
Thanks
Mercury marine has one
Does anyone know what the length, width, height of this new 4.3l V6 are? From initial descriptions, it seem liek it would be idea to drop into any number of hot rod projects, (trucks of the 40s and 50s come to mind).
Hey I have a 2000 GMC Sonoma sls, 2wd, 4.3l vortec and I noticed that the balancer is shaking quite a bit on idle. I changed the balancer but it still does it, soidk if I should look into a new crank shaft or what?? Also there’s a vibration at about 60km and 100km and I heard that could be the drive shaft so I changed the hanger bearing but it still does it any suggestions on what these could be would be great!!
The ecotec3 LV3 is based on the Gen V LT engine, not the LS engine, and with Alcohol (E-85) it makes 330ft lbs, destroying the non-turbo ford
Anyone thought of going to electric drive wheels? Similar to the Letourneau system. Eliminate power robbing gears and driveshafts. Should one electric wheel motor fail, isolate it and drive to repair shop on remaining powered wheels.
Anyone thought of going to electric drive wheels? Similar to the Letourneau system. Eliminate power robbing gears and driveshafts. Should one electric wheel motor fail, isolate it and drive to repair shop on remaining powered wheels.
I have a 22003 S10 Extreme /4.3L Vortec V6 any suggestions on what to do to make this S10 Perform better beside drop an LS V8 in it? Thanks Rod
I need to replace the ecotec 2.0 turbo engine on my 2014 Buick Regal. What do you suggest? It’s for my girlfriends daily driving.