Author Topic: My thoughts on discontinuing the v-6 in new trucks.....  (Read 726 times)

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
My thoughts on discontinuing the v-6 in new trucks.....
« on: September 04, 2021, 10:49:49 AM »
As you may know, i'm a 6 cyl fan.   But unbiasedly speaking, i think GM discontinuing the v-6 in trucks is not a good move:


1) You need at least 6 cylinders  in a fullsize truck.  4cyls doesn't  "feel" right.    A 4 cylinder is all right, even ideal in a smaller truck, like the Colorado.   So, from at least a marketing standpoint, not a good move.

a) But from a practical standpoint, the 4.3 v-6 still makes more torque and has a higher tow capacity than the turbo 4.   Isn't torque more important in a truck?   Also, the new 4.3 shuts down and runs on 4 cylinders anyway under highway cruising because of the displacement on demand (DOD) system.


2) The vans will continue with the 4.3, but if the pattern repeats itself------the astro and fullsize vans continued with the gen 1 4.3 while the trucks got the new LV3 4.3. But then the old 4.3 was discontinued in 2015.   Following that pattern,  then this new LV3 4.3 will be dropped from the vans as well?


« Last Edit: September 04, 2021, 10:51:52 AM by Stewart G Griffin »

Offline VileZambonie

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18516
Re: My thoughts on discontinuing the v-6 in new trucks.....
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2021, 07:42:18 AM »
You won't have to worry about V-Anything soon enough. Everything will be electric or hybrid. Did you see the new gm logo? That should paint the picture of where they are going, and lately, all gm does is fails to keep up with Ford, Ram, and Toyota unfortunately.
,                           ___ 
                         /  _ _ _\_
              ⌠ŻŻŻŻŻ'   [☼===☼]
              `()_);-;()_)--o--)_)

74 GMC, 75 K5, 84 GMC, 85 K20, 86 k20, 79 K10

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: My thoughts on discontinuing the v-6 in new trucks.....
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2021, 12:46:29 PM »
i'm not getting it;  At the silverado website the turbo 4 has the lowest tow capacity of them all---well lower than the v-6.   Maybe the turbo gets too hot?

The turbo 4 does have higher hp and tq numbers than the v-6, but maybe the v-6's torque curve is flatter?


Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: My thoughts on discontinuing the v-6 in new trucks.....
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2021, 12:49:39 PM »
UPDATE:

Nope, i was looking at the 2020 page.   For 2021 the turbo 4 (supposedly....) has a 9300lbs tow capacity vs. the v-6's 7900lbs.

In that case, it MIGHT make sense to drop the 6.........

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: My thoughts on discontinuing the v-6 in new trucks.....
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2021, 08:05:38 PM »
Just some more food for thought:

i was at a traffic light today (accidentally went to work because i forgot today was a holiday :-[), anyways, at the light, there was 8 crossovers, i was the only truck (my colorado) and one "regular" car---a camry or equivalent.


And, not to be prejudicial, but i'm pretty sure the type of people who are buying crossovers don't give a toss about number of cylinders.    Just as long as it moves, they're good.

Truck buyers, on the other hand, DO care about number of cylinders.   That's why i feel, from a marketing standpoint especially, but possibly even a performance standpoint, eliminating the v-6 is a bad move.

If i could also update on my findings about tow capacity:
Nothing has apparently changed with the actual engines from last years model, but somehow, magically(?), the tow capacity for the turbo 4 went up 2,200 lbs for 2021???

The v-6 DOES NOT make more torque than the turbo 4 as i had previously thought.   It would be interesting to see the actual torque curves for each engine.

Offline zieg85

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7434
    • 73-87 GM squarebody extended cab and conversions up to 91 R/V series
Re: My thoughts on discontinuing the v-6 in new trucks.....
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2021, 11:31:41 AM »
1) I would never go out on a limb and purchase new anything.
2) The used market has gone completely off the rails
3) A well tuned V-8 full sized square body truck can routinely get 18+ miles per gallon, for my driving needs, I'll stick with the old stuff I understand.
Carl 
1985 C20 Scottsdale 7.4L 4 speed 3.21
1986 C10 under construction
https://www.facebook.com/groups/248658382003506/

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: My thoughts on discontinuing the v-6 in new trucks.....
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2021, 07:21:31 PM »
1) I would never go out on a limb and purchase new anything.
2) The used market has gone completely off the rails
3) A well tuned V-8 full sized square body truck can routinely get 18+ miles per gallon, for my driving needs, I'll stick with the old stuff I understand.

i was just thinking about that the other day:  i may switch back to v-8 sbc for the following reasons:

1) It's simpler/easier/faster;       You have almost an endless supply of heads/intakes/cams/whatever you need.  The aftermarket for SBC is unmatched by any engine.   The v-6, including buick, really don't have much.   Even with the short popularity of the Grand National, the v-6 never took off in popularity and probably never will.

2) The weight advantage of the v-6 is not that great.   All things being equal (both engines using iron heads) it's about 575lbs for the 8 vs. 425lbs for the 6,  so about 125 lbs.   However, IF you go with aluminum heads/intake on the sbc, and with sbc it's really not difficult or expensive, now we are talking about 90-100lbs difference.   90-100lbs. is really not much for an engine AND considering how much more power the v-8's have, you are gaining much more in power than losing in weight disadvantage.

2a)  Engine setback:   i thought this was a big one BUT now i don't think it's that great either.   On the truck, the front of the v-6's block (not the accessories) IS behind the front axle centerline by about 1".    A 4.3 v-6 is roughly 4 1/2" shorter than a v-8.   However, not all of the 90-100lbs weight difference is in that first 4 1/2 inches.   So, here, i SUSPECT the engine setback is not as HUGE a difference as i once thought.   

Does ANY engine setback help performance?  Probably.    i'm not autocrossing, so to me it doesn't make much a difference.


3) Size advantage.   SBC's practically fit into almost anything.   One of  the big reasons why i went with the 4.3 is so i could do this:



Yes, it can be done----if you cut down on the rich desserts.......



i could practically rent this space out on AirB+B.....

This HAS made it so much easier to work on the engine.   But with a TopSide creeper, this would be unnecessary.


4) Performance/versatility:
The v-8 just hands down blows away the 4.3. power-wise.   Even a stock basic crate 350 makes more power without trying and with no add ons----nitrous etc.      You can easily build or buy a new, running 383 delivered  to your door in a few days.   Thats an easy 340-420 hp N/A.

5) MPG advantage.    i'm generally finding lose 2 cylinders, gain 2 mpg.   That's significant.  But if you don't do that much driving and i don't, then how much are you saving?

Overall verdict:   Even with all the small advantages here and there of the 4.3, the v-8 still overall wins out due to versatility, cost and ease of operation/build out ability.   

i picked the engine because i like it and wanted something physically smaller.    It's funny that i'm on GM's case for dropping the v-6, and here i am considering the same.   i still really like the engine though.


It's kind of the same thing with manual transmissions.   i've always been an automatic person, never wanting a manual in any of my cars.   But i feel it should still be offered because a lot of truck people and enthusiast types (corvette, camaro etc.) still want them.   Plus, they are simpler and i feel that there are always advantages to that.

From a sales standpoint, if the demand is really that low, then i guess it makes sense to drop it?