Vortec 4.3L V-6 -- Opinions Wanted.

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.

Reply to
One-Shot Scot
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
Big Chris

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. 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:

formatting link
formatting link
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 b>It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's

Reply to
old bonehead

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

Reply to
shiden_Kai

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.

Reply to
Rick De Visser

Huh? Is a mile in Canada a different distance than a mile in the US?

Karl Perry

Reply to
Karl Perry

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

Reply to
Karl Perry

Great, confirms my experience as well. I think the 4.3 and the 3.8 (a 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

Karl Perry wrote:

Reply to
old bonehead

I beg to differ! Try a 4.3 in the S-series trucks, it is NOT 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 >It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's

Reply to
Mike Levy

No, but the Canadians would use an Imperial Gallon as opposed to a US Gallon...

Reply to
Mike Levy

Sorry to hear of all your troubles. All I can say is that I have a

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.
Reply to
websurfer

Its bigger, like most things here.

Reply to
hank

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.
Reply to
One-Shot Scot

I drove a 91 Chevrolet W/T 4x4 Long Bed with the 4.3 for nearly eight years 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

Reply to
_bent

all I have to say to your post is the following 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

Reply to
seeray

Hi!

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.

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.

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.

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

Reply to
William R. Walsh

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.
Reply to
One-Shot Scot

Reply to
One-Shot Scot

That he and several others have had good luck with Vortec 4.3L V-6.

And....

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.

Reply to
One-Shot Scot

"old bonehead" wrote in message news:58gIc.18239$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...

Reply to
One-Shot Scot

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.