Stupid Question of the day: 4.3 anyone?

[Tx Firefighter]

Back in the 90's I worked as a mechanic for a GM dealer. I bought a new short bed truck every year. In my experience, the 350 trucks always matched the 4.3 V6 trucks for mileage and were much more pleasant to drive. The 350 would motor over hills while the V6 would always be up and downshifting over them.

In my experience, V6 engines are super in S10 trucks though, but fullsize need a V8's torque.

[sailed2japan]

Yeah, the need for torque is why I suggest the inline 6. I don't know how the 292 would compare, but in my experience the 300 inline 6 that ford had up into the 90'2 was good for fuel milage and still making decent power. My buddy had one and we wouldn't hesitate to put anything on th carhauler behind it.

[cr8zchevyguy]

i say do it. why not? i plan to do it with my 82 c-10 short bed i got a nice s10 4.3 with the th700r4 tranny with 120xxx miles wrecked that i'll be taking it out of. and just like you i need a good daily reliable driver with good gas milege. they started putting these engines in full size trucks back in 85 and still use them today, so they still use them for reason!!! im sure that your 60's era truck weighs just about the same or even less than the later trucks, so why not???? just make sure you have some good runing gears out back and you will be set. good luck.

[RollinKaos]

Originally Posted by Tx Firefighter

Back in the 90's I worked as a mechanic for a GM dealer. I bought a new short bed truck every year. In my experience, the 350 trucks always matched the 4.3 V6 trucks for mileage and were much more pleasant to drive. The 350 would motor over hills while the V6 would always be up and downshifting over them.

In my experience, V6 engines are super in S10 trucks though, but fullsize need a V8's torque.

Exactly what I was thinking. I worked as a tech at the same time and felt in the S10 and Astro the 4.3 was a rocket, but left you wanting in the 1500 truck . The 5 speed made it better but if mileage is the goal then stick with the SBC.

[creep]

Seems like these older trucks would be a bit heavy for a 4.3. My S10 has good power and decent mileage but it weighs a lot less.

[joedoh]

Originally Posted by creep

Seems like these older trucks would be a bit heavy for a 4.3. My S10 has good power and decent mileage but it weighs a lot less.

thats actually backwards, the s10 weighs more than the C10. my donor 98 std cab base model S10 had a curb weight of 3242 lbs. The curb weight of a swb is around 2900 lbs. you are saving 350 lbs in sound deadening and crash protection. Not to mention what you will save taking out the cast iron engine.

The other place there is a lot of weight in the 60-66 is in the frame, to get that high towing weight.

This was the basis for my using a 2.2l 98 S10 in my 1962, I wagered that the old truck cab was significantly lighter and by using the frame and engine of the 98 it would run and drive better. driving the truck it sure seems I was right, it scoots better than it did as an S10.




I was just looking for something that would have comfort (AC, EFI, highway gears) and safety (ABS, disc front brakes) and wasnt so worried about towing or hauling. If those are your goals too, I say get after it and post pictures!

[Tx Firefighter]

Originally Posted by joedoh

thats actually backwards, the s10 weighs more than the C10. my donor 98 std cab base model S10 had a curb weight of 3242 lbs. The curb weight of a swb is around 2900 lbs. you are saving 350 lbs in sound deadening and crash protection. Not to mention what you will save taking out the cast iron engine.

The other place there is a lot of weight in the 60-66 is in the frame, to get that high towing weight.

This was the basis for my using a 2.2l 98 S10 in my 1962, I wagered that the old truck cab was significantly lighter and by using the frame and engine of the 98 it would run and drive better. driving the truck it sure seems I was right, it scoots better than it did as an S10.




I was just looking for something that would have comfort (AC, EFI, highway gears) and safety (ABS, disc front brakes) and wasnt so worried about towing or hauling. If those are your goals too, I say get after it and post pictures!

It been my experience ( I haul a lot of scrap metal so I scale often in my trucks) that an early truck weighs about 3600 pounds and a 88-98 truck about 4200 pounds.

[joedoh]

could be, I was going from the stated title weight here in ks. I have seen 3440 published as well which is closer to your number.


I'll roll mine on the scale at the scrapyard one of these days. I know the weight of the c10 is in the drivetrain and engine, so no doubt I am not feeling the phantom weight savings in how much pep my truck has.

[fishmunger]

i have a 64 c10 short fleet with a th400/350 combo that gets about 10 mpg, and I have a 2003 GMC sonoma with the 4.3 v6 and 100k miles. The motor runs great, has plenty of punch, and I can get up to 22 mpg on the highway. I really like it. Once I wear the sonoma out, I think I'll pull the engine and trans, rebuild it, and drop it in the 64 and make that my daily driver again.

I say go for it!

[sailed2japan]

10 mpg's is a litttle on the low side. even for a 350/th400. i think you need to look at fine tuning your carb and see if your trans is slipping some. what rear gears are you running? I know I had a 1993 crew cab 1 ton dually 454/4l80e/4.10 gears and still got 12-14 mpg's. You should be able to get that even w/o the od.

[Heater63]

Originally Posted by sailed2japan

I've given this topic alot of thought and if it were my ride I would roll with a 292 inline 6, I think they may have only been in the big trucks. Anyway I would get it breathing throught TBI from a late 80's/ early 90's 350, since they still used a distributor. Then I would bolt a 5 speed overdrive to it and run a 3.42 axle ration or whatever worked best to keep my RPM's in the sweet spot doing 70-80 on the highway. I'd also use some moderate width tires. skinnier would be better for ultimate mpg's, but it's no use if you can't jump into traffic or corner worth a crap. That's why I think a 235 or 245 width is about right.

Only problem is he's interested in fuel efficiency too. The 292 is a long stroke torque monster, but not fuel efficient because the heads sucked- and it's not cheap to hot rod one or do the mods to make it more efficient. Mine has cost way more than any modified SBC! But your correct on the T5 (or $$$ TKO-500) with gears of the 3:4-3:73 range.
For different, put in the I6 from a new Trailblazer.
For best value, ease, and efficiency, Clemdaddy may have right approach by modernizing the induction, ignition, and heads of a 327, or a 305 for a miser.
Posted via Mobile Device

[pa_snowman]

in 1985 my dad had a full size 4wd chevy with an 8ft bed that had a vortec 4.3 v6 with a q-jet carb. he drove it for many years and it got better fuel milage than his prevous 71 chevy 2wd with a 307. it ran good even performed great pushing thru snow drifts to get to work.

[283nova]

had one in my blazer got 20 it was a 95 the 89 got 17-19 wheres this bad mileage gig come from????

[Shaky]

My father had a mid-90's S-10 Blazer with a 4.3. I was unimpressed with that engine for many of the reasons that people already listed.

So, when my brother saw a cheap, brand-new 2006 Silverado with that engine for sale I was reluctant. Anyway, I went and test drove it. The engine performance wasn't spectacular but it was way better than I remembered my father's being.

The 2006 4.3 has port injection, Vortec heads, roller cam, and dual cats. It makes good power if you spin it up. I've gotten over 20 mpg on the highway hauling a 1/2 ton of stuff. It has been reliable.

My main gripe is low-end torque. I'm used to the straight sixes in our old trucks. The 4.3 gets the job done, but I'll never forgive GM for not putting in the redesigned six-in-a-row into their new pick-ups. I mean - what were they thinking?!?!

[283nova]

the truck i am looking at has the 305 v6 but id love to swap in a 250 inliner been wanting to dink with one for years.

[Dano69c10]

Need some torque in the 4.3L V-6? Stroke it!

http://www.speedomotive.com/ps-502-8...crank-kit.aspx

http://www.hotrod.com/pitstop/hrdp_0...nce/index.html

Forget the FI, E-brock performer intake, E-brock carb, vortec heads and call it a day!

Just my $0.02
Dano

[dubds10]

Seems like a lot of people had POS 4.3s. I've been running, S10s and Blazers for a long time. Love those little trucks. I've had all different models with all the different engines available. The 4.3 is a great little engine in the vehicles is in good running condition. If you're truck isn't in the best mechanical/drivetrain shape, the engine wont perform the best of course.

I think power wise it's not sluggish at all. Hell even the 2.2L/5spd combo in a std cab short box S10 goes decent lol

This has to do with the build above. I'd like to do a similar build to my 4.3 that i have sitting around for my '54 Chevy truck, but we'll see.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...ild/index.html