Full-Size Regular Cab with V6?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jelly

Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
2,569
Location
College Dorm...
I currently drive an older Chevy C1500 with the 4.3L...engine runs great, but the truck around it is falling apart. Was beat to heck by the local electric company, and we've beat the heck out of it in use on the farm.

If you had to buy a USED full-size regular cab truck with a V6 and 5-speed stick, which one would you pick? Which one of these is the most durable/reliable?

Chevy/GMC
Ford
Dodge
Toyota Tundra

[ November 02, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Jelly ]
 
I'm very happy with my 2003 Tundra V6. I also have a 1994 F-150 and a 1997 E-350 van. I expect the toyota to last for a very long time. I get about 22 mpg hwy. The Tundra has a very nice ride as well. I have an 4X4 with auto so a 5-speed will probally get better gas mileage.
grin.gif
 
I am have never been a big fan of putting a V6 in a full size truck.

IMHO, the last decent 6 cyl in a full size truck was the pre-97 Fords with the 300 I6 - two wheel drive models only.

Why do you want a V6? In a used truck, there can't be that much of a difference in price from a V6 to a small V8. Gas mileage has to be similar in these engines also (with the exception of Dodge).

If I absolutly had to buy a truck with a V6, I'd probably have to go with the Toyota. The only downfall to the Toyota would be the increased labor rate due to it being a so called 'foreign' vehicle. This is only if something breaks.
 
Yeah, I'm just curious as to what you guys here thought about the crop of 2wd fullsize trucks. A small V8 would be fine as long as it didn't suck the fuel down like crazy.

We picked up a 4.3L Chevy and it's been great...at least engine wise. Once we replace about ten things on the truck, it'll be just fine for running around.

[ November 02, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Jelly ]
 
You’ll get many different answers on this one but I’ll give you my opinion:
I would probably choose the Chevy/GMC because the 4.3L V6 is a good engine. I believe that when you have a large vehicle, you need as much torque as possible and generally, all other factors being equal, a larger displacement engine will produce more torque. I think of the choices you gave, the Chevy/GMC comes with the largest V6 vs. the Ford’s 4.2L, the Dodge’s 3.9L and the Toyota’s 3.0L. I had the 4.3L engine in my S-10 and it was reliable and returned good fuel mileage.

The 4.3L V6’s achilles heel is its valve guides that are notorious for wearing prematurely; many of these engines puff blue smoke upon start-up.

However, for overall reliability, I’d go with the Toyota. I don’t know too much about the Ford or Dodge.

My 2¢
 
I have a 2001 Dodge 1500 V-6 (3.9) with the 5 speed. If you don't live in the mountains and don't pull very heavy loads, the six is ok. Mine gets 19 mpg average, and gets up to 22 mpg on a trip. Never gets less than 17 mpg. Something to consider when gas is 2 bucks a gallon. I had a fullsize 1994 chevy van with the 4.3 automatic and it had more power. Both are excellent for reliability and got similar gas mileage. Ford had issues with main bearings on some 1990s 300 sixes and Ford uses the weak Mazda 5 speed transmission. Also the 300 six gets about the same mileage as a small V-8, but also has the most power. However, the body seems to hold up better on a Ford than anything else.
cheers.gif
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blokey:


The 4.3L V6's achilles heel is its valve guides that are notorious for wearing prematurely; many of these engines puff blue smoke upon start-up.

My 2¢
Click to expand...
Didn't they correct that problem in the mid 1990s?
 
quote:
Originally posted by XS650:

quote:
Originally posted by Blokey:


The 4.3L V6's achilles heel is its valve guides that are notorious for wearing prematurely; many of these engines puff blue smoke upon start-up.

My 2¢
Click to expand...
Didn't they correct that problem in the mid 1990s?
Click to expand...
My '92 has the factory standard (not even an option!
grin.gif
) bad valve seals, and Pennz. HM 10w-40 has done an incredible job of reducing the blue smoke on startup...
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jelly:

quote:
Originally posted by Blokey:


The 4.3L V6's achilles heel is its valve guides that are notorious for wearing prematurely; many of these engines puff blue smoke upon start-up.

My 2¢
Click to expand...
My '92 has the factory standard (not even an option!
grin.gif
) bad valve seals, and Pennz. HM 10w-40 has done an incredible job of reducing the blue smoke on startup...
Click to expand...
My brothers 93 came with the mandatory factory standard smoke screen installation. AFAIK, it wasn't even available as an option on my 95.
 
I would not be surprised if GM never fixed that problem. My 2002 3.1L has piston slap and probably will go through an intake gasket and they've been using this engine 20+ years I think.

FWIW, the Tundra V6 is a 3.4L (not 3.0L) and is rated for 190hp/220torque and dynos for 155hp/200torque stock.
 
quote:
Originally posted by FL-400S:
I would not be surprised if GM never fixed that problem. My 2002 3.1L has piston slap and probably will go through an intake gasket and they've been using this engine 20+ years I think.

FWIW, the Tundra V6 is a 3.4L (not 3.0L) and is rated for 190hp/220torque and dynos for 155hp/200torque stock.
Click to expand...
The 3.1 has been around only since 89. Tthe 89-92 engines did not have the same intake, and no problems with this AFAIK.

-T
 
A Dodge with an inline 6, the Cummins diesel :^)

The 12V Cummins is popular in spite of some potential lift pump problems and the noise as it's all mechanical. I get 17 to 18 mpg around town in my newer Cummins, finally broke 20 mpg on the highway this last summer, and would expect another couple of mpg in the flatlands.
 
I see quite a few V6-powered GM's around here, seems there was a customizer who gave 'em the ghetto look that was popular (extra chrome, wide wheels, loud exhaust, tint and body accessories) a few years back. There are used lots specializing in only this kind of truck. They are now on second/third owners, apparently, and aren't in good shape. The drivers tend to really stand on them in traffic . . kind of pitiful.

This leads me to want a manual for this combo of heavy weight and small cid motor. I've driven a few mid-90's and later trucks with V6 and the manual definitely gave it an edge (don't like manually shifting an auto except under certain conditions).

Sure, it'll give up acceleration, but ought to be fine for cruising. About twenty years ago I had to drive an old SEARS straight truck that could carry quite a few tons of load. Had a manual behind an L6-240. Hardly quick, but moved right along in stop-and-go. (Brakes were a whole other question).
 
The 2005 Toyota Tundra's standard engine is a 270hp 4.0L V6... that's a lot of power. The V8 now pumps out 282 hp.

Edit: oops.... i just saw the USED part. Um... I would go with the Dodge.

The 4.2L V6 in earlier F150s had 150hp... even my 4.0L Jeep can take one of those.

The newer body style Rams have 210hp 3.7L V6. I've riden in one... it's not that bad. The older style has a 175hp 3.9L V6 (its just the 5.2L V8 minus 2 cylinders).

And the Chebby (my least favorite because of its interior that never changes) with the 4.3L V6 with 190hp... the slowest of all the trucks mentioned (personal experiences)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Full size Pick-Ups and Parking Spots
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
12K
CharlesInCharge
gregk24
Dad is looking for a new truck
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
7K
ARCOgraphite
slo town
Our trip to the 108th running of the Indy 500
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Carmudgeon
C
  • Locked
"Tow Pig" build
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
24K
NYEngineer
Falcon_LS
Review: '21 Suburban Z71 (14,574 miles/6 weeks)
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
Falcon_LS
Back
Top Bottom