Full Size Trucks With 6 Cylinder Engines
- Thread starter lancerplayer
- Start date
- Status
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
I owned a 1994 4.3L 5spd Chevy W/T, bought it new for ~$13K. I pulled a car carrier with a buddy's 1970's Camero on it a few times with that truck. No problem at all. I also owned a 1998 K1500 w/t 4.3L, 4x4 auto. Got it nearly new for $16K. Again, plenty of power. In the past, if you were cost conscious, the I6 or V6 would be considerably less. If the cost is the same, you'd be crazy not to go V8.
Joel
Joel
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
Today's full size truck is not like yesterday's full size truck. They need more torque to move around the ever increasing weight and size of the truck, nevermind the added payload.
Today's V6 engines aren't the low-revving torque monsters they used to be. Current V6 engine design is tight tolerance, high revving OHC or DOHC. This doesn't work well in a truck application as it does in a sedan or minivan.
While its true a modern V6 will propel a modern truck, its not as functional and efficient as a modern small modular V8. As others have said a small V8 will deliver about the same mileage as a modern V6, deliver more needed torque and will retain better resale value.
The only appeal of a V6 in a full size truck is fleet compatibility which helps lower operating costs. Beyond that, skip it.
What? High revving? The 4.2 in my F150 redlines at 4750. I rarely get the engine above 4k rpm, even when I tow or haul. Plenty of low end torque for "trucky" applications.
You didn't read my post. That 4.2L is not a modern, high revving engine and has been discontinued by Ford.
I read that in the 1970s Ford copied the Buick 3.8L design when developing the "Canadian Essex" V6 that started as a 3.8 then punched out to 4.2L.
Anyway, your engine is ancient tech and pretty much every OHC or DOHC V6 revs quite a bit higher. Those old torquey V6's are going or gone from the automotive landscape.
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
Today's full size truck is not like yesterday's full size truck. They need more torque to move around the ever increasing weight and size of the truck, nevermind the added payload.
Today's V6 engines aren't the low-revving torque monsters they used to be. Current V6 engine design is tight tolerance, high revving OHC or DOHC. This doesn't work well in a truck application as it does in a sedan or minivan.
While its true a modern V6 will propel a modern truck, its not as functional and efficient as a modern small modular V8. As others have said a small V8 will deliver about the same mileage as a modern V6, deliver more needed torque and will retain better resale value.
The only appeal of a V6 in a full size truck is fleet compatibility which helps lower operating costs. Beyond that, skip it.
What? High revving? The 4.2 in my F150 redlines at 4750. I rarely get the engine above 4k rpm, even when I tow or haul. Plenty of low end torque for "trucky" applications.
You didn't read my post. That 4.2L is not a modern, high revving engine and has been discontinued by Ford.
I read that in the 1970s Ford copied the Buick 3.8L design when developing the "Canadian Essex" V6 that started as a 3.8 then punched out to 4.2L.
Anyway, your engine is ancient tech and pretty much every OHC or DOHC V6 revs quite a bit higher. Those old torquey V6's are going or gone from the automotive landscape.
the truck in my signature has the 4.3, regular cab w/3.42 gears, 2wd. i got a heck of a deal on it. it's a 2 wd and i bought it in winter time in grand rapids, mi. mileage is fair. upper teens to 20 on the highway. my previous truck was a 2001 dodge ram 2wd, regular cab w/3.55 gears and a 318. it was better on gas and had more power. my V-6 though, has power to pass on the highway and when the red light turns green it moves along with the general flow of traffic just fine. i've pulled 5,000 lbs with it and it does that ok also. all things being equal, (which they seldom are) i'd prefer the 5.3. i got a heck of a deal on it with the 6. it's a keeper! btw, i use pennzoil yb with the oci dictated by the oil life monitor.
Originally Posted By: lancerplayer
What are your thoughts on full size (1/2 ton- F150, Silverado 1500, Ram 1500, etc) with 6 cylinder engines? If one will never be towing, off roading, or hauling anything more than 500lbs in the bed would this be a practical choice? I know they get similar gas mileage to the 8 cylinder, but 6 cylinders can be gotten cheaper. Will they last just as long as the 8 cylinders or will the smaller engine have to work a lot harder to move the truck, thus cutting its lifespan short?
Regular Cab with a short bed and 2WD and they are fine for what you describe. Just too underpowered when you throw 4WD in to the mix(IMO).
What are your thoughts on full size (1/2 ton- F150, Silverado 1500, Ram 1500, etc) with 6 cylinder engines? If one will never be towing, off roading, or hauling anything more than 500lbs in the bed would this be a practical choice? I know they get similar gas mileage to the 8 cylinder, but 6 cylinders can be gotten cheaper. Will they last just as long as the 8 cylinders or will the smaller engine have to work a lot harder to move the truck, thus cutting its lifespan short?
Regular Cab with a short bed and 2WD and they are fine for what you describe. Just too underpowered when you throw 4WD in to the mix(IMO).
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
Today's full size truck is not like yesterday's full size truck. They need more torque to move around the ever increasing weight and size of the truck, nevermind the added payload.
Today's V6 engines aren't the low-revving torque monsters they used to be. Current V6 engine design is tight tolerance, high revving OHC or DOHC. This doesn't work well in a truck application as it does in a sedan or minivan.
While its true a modern V6 will propel a modern truck, its not as functional and efficient as a modern small modular V8. As others have said a small V8 will deliver about the same mileage as a modern V6, deliver more needed torque and will retain better resale value.
The only appeal of a V6 in a full size truck is fleet compatibility which helps lower operating costs. Beyond that, skip it.
What? High revving? The 4.2 in my F150 redlines at 4750. I rarely get the engine above 4k rpm, even when I tow or haul. Plenty of low end torque for "trucky" applications.
You didn't read my post. That 4.2L is not a modern, high revving engine and has been discontinued by Ford.
I read that in the 1970s Ford copied the Buick 3.8L design when developing the "Canadian Essex" V6 that started as a 3.8 then punched out to 4.2L.
Anyway, your engine is ancient tech and pretty much every OHC or DOHC V6 revs quite a bit higher. Those old torquey V6's are going or gone from the automotive landscape.
The Ford 4.0 SOHC was used to replace the 4.0 OHV in the older Explorer, and it was praised highly.
Anyway, the Ford 4.6 and Ford 5.4 truck V8 engines are SOHC and yet they aren't made to go beyond 5200 RPM. The same 4.6 with different cams and manifolds goes to a higher RPM in the Mustang.
What really determines the low end torque versus high RPM HP is the size of each individual cylinder, and the camshaft profile.
There are plenty of DOHC 4 Cylinder engines like the Toyota 2AZ-FE and Nissan QR25DE that can't handle much more than 6000 RPM.
As for the GMC 4.3 V6, I wouldn't recommend it because of those weak intake gaskets that are so failure prone. I don't have to do nearly as many intake gaskets on the 4.8, 5.3, and 6.0.
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
Today's full size truck is not like yesterday's full size truck. They need more torque to move around the ever increasing weight and size of the truck, nevermind the added payload.
Today's V6 engines aren't the low-revving torque monsters they used to be. Current V6 engine design is tight tolerance, high revving OHC or DOHC. This doesn't work well in a truck application as it does in a sedan or minivan.
While its true a modern V6 will propel a modern truck, its not as functional and efficient as a modern small modular V8. As others have said a small V8 will deliver about the same mileage as a modern V6, deliver more needed torque and will retain better resale value.
The only appeal of a V6 in a full size truck is fleet compatibility which helps lower operating costs. Beyond that, skip it.
What? High revving? The 4.2 in my F150 redlines at 4750. I rarely get the engine above 4k rpm, even when I tow or haul. Plenty of low end torque for "trucky" applications.
You didn't read my post. That 4.2L is not a modern, high revving engine and has been discontinued by Ford.
I read that in the 1970s Ford copied the Buick 3.8L design when developing the "Canadian Essex" V6 that started as a 3.8 then punched out to 4.2L.
Anyway, your engine is ancient tech and pretty much every OHC or DOHC V6 revs quite a bit higher. Those old torquey V6's are going or gone from the automotive landscape.
The Ford 4.0 SOHC was used to replace the 4.0 OHV in the older Explorer, and it was praised highly.
Anyway, the Ford 4.6 and Ford 5.4 truck V8 engines are SOHC and yet they aren't made to go beyond 5200 RPM. The same 4.6 with different cams and manifolds goes to a higher RPM in the Mustang.
What really determines the low end torque versus high RPM HP is the size of each individual cylinder, and the camshaft profile.
There are plenty of DOHC 4 Cylinder engines like the Toyota 2AZ-FE and Nissan QR25DE that can't handle much more than 6000 RPM.
As for the GMC 4.3 V6, I wouldn't recommend it because of those weak intake gaskets that are so failure prone. I don't have to do nearly as many intake gaskets on the 4.8, 5.3, and 6.0.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
True. Basically because the 5.3 has Cylinder deactivation whereas the 4.8 doesn't. Every little bit helps. Plus, you may have the aluminum version 5.3.
My truck doesn't have cylinder deactivation... it's an '04. I wouldn't want it either.
True. Basically because the 5.3 has Cylinder deactivation whereas the 4.8 doesn't. Every little bit helps. Plus, you may have the aluminum version 5.3.
My truck doesn't have cylinder deactivation... it's an '04. I wouldn't want it either.
I am happy with my V6 truck. It is a long bed,2WD with a manual transmission and 3.23 rear. I find the power more than adequate.
I do miss the granny gear i had in my 1986 F250 4.9l. The GM 4.3l doesn't have any low-end torque at all and I have to rev the engine a bit to get the truck moving.
I do miss the granny gear i had in my 1986 F250 4.9l. The GM 4.3l doesn't have any low-end torque at all and I have to rev the engine a bit to get the truck moving.
I've never had a V6 truck, but I've had a bunch with 300 inch inline fords. They were great, especially the EFI ones.
Back in 92 I ordered a totally blacked out F250 with a club cab and a 300 six. The dealer thought I was nuts, but I really loved that truck.
Back in 92 I ordered a totally blacked out F250 with a club cab and a 300 six. The dealer thought I was nuts, but I really loved that truck.
My son has a 92 F150 with a 4.9L I6, 5 spd. The 3.55 is a tad high for the hills around here, a 3.73 would probably be better all around gearing, like on my Dodge with the I6 Cummins. At over 140k miles my son's truck had a great emissions test recently, it doesn't seem to burn much more than 1/2 qt betwen oil changes, and evidently is one of the more durable engines that Ford made. An earlier 250 CI might be better for mileage. The Cummins in the Dodge is great, it seems to one of the most durable engines currently offered in a non-commercial vehicle.
The Ford 300 CI Six had bores and strokes that resembled a big block V8, that is why they had such great low end torque. 4.3L equals about 260-270 CI, so it is difficult to make the low end torque equal.
That, and inline sixes never have a countershaft that steals horsepower. The GM 4.3 has one, because a 90 degree V6 has very bad vibration without one.
That, and inline sixes never have a countershaft that steals horsepower. The GM 4.3 has one, because a 90 degree V6 has very bad vibration without one.
A fine older mechanic I know always preached that being geared improperly results in both a worn out transmission and a worn out engine.
3.73 I feel being an ideal setup.... problem with a v6 is that you will often not find this gear offering.
There is a world of difference between a 3.23 and a 3.73 ... I feel the engine in this regard is not most important.
3.73 I feel being an ideal setup.... problem with a v6 is that you will often not find this gear offering.
There is a world of difference between a 3.23 and a 3.73 ... I feel the engine in this regard is not most important.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
My son has a 92 F150 with a 4.9L I6, 5 spd. The 3.55 is a tad high for the hills around here, a 3.73 would probably be better all around gearing, like on my Dodge with the I6 Cummins. At over 140k miles my son's truck had a great emissions test recently, it doesn't seem to burn much more than 1/2 qt betwen oil changes, and evidently is one of the more durable engines that Ford made. An earlier 250 CI might be better for mileage. The Cummins in the Dodge is great, it seems to one of the most durable engines currently offered in a non-commercial vehicle.
My 300 I6 was backed by 4.11's
But it was in a 3/4-ton behind a C6. It would pull the a$$hole out of the world. It just wouldn't do it very quickly.
My son has a 92 F150 with a 4.9L I6, 5 spd. The 3.55 is a tad high for the hills around here, a 3.73 would probably be better all around gearing, like on my Dodge with the I6 Cummins. At over 140k miles my son's truck had a great emissions test recently, it doesn't seem to burn much more than 1/2 qt betwen oil changes, and evidently is one of the more durable engines that Ford made. An earlier 250 CI might be better for mileage. The Cummins in the Dodge is great, it seems to one of the most durable engines currently offered in a non-commercial vehicle.
My 300 I6 was backed by 4.11's
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
My son has a 92 F150 with a 4.9L I6, 5 spd. The 3.55 is a tad high for the hills around here, a 3.73 would probably be better all around gearing, like on my Dodge with the I6 Cummins. At over 140k miles my son's truck had a great emissions test recently, it doesn't seem to burn much more than 1/2 qt betwen oil changes, and evidently is one of the more durable engines that Ford made. An earlier 250 CI might be better for mileage. The Cummins in the Dodge is great, it seems to one of the most durable engines currently offered in a non-commercial vehicle.
My 300 I6 was backed by 4.11's
But it was in a 3/4-ton behind a C6. It would pull the a$$hole out of the world. It just wouldn't do it very quickly.
LOL. I did not know that engine/trans/rear combo was available. I bet that thing was unstoppable. What was the torque rating on the inline 6?
Those things seem to love turbocharging. I've seen a street rod in the 9s with a turbo I6 Ford with surprisingly little done to the engine.
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
My son has a 92 F150 with a 4.9L I6, 5 spd. The 3.55 is a tad high for the hills around here, a 3.73 would probably be better all around gearing, like on my Dodge with the I6 Cummins. At over 140k miles my son's truck had a great emissions test recently, it doesn't seem to burn much more than 1/2 qt betwen oil changes, and evidently is one of the more durable engines that Ford made. An earlier 250 CI might be better for mileage. The Cummins in the Dodge is great, it seems to one of the most durable engines currently offered in a non-commercial vehicle.
My 300 I6 was backed by 4.11's
LOL. I did not know that engine/trans/rear combo was available. I bet that thing was unstoppable. What was the torque rating on the inline 6?
Those things seem to love turbocharging. I've seen a street rod in the 9s with a turbo I6 Ford with surprisingly little done to the engine.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
My son has a 92 F150 with a 4.9L I6, 5 spd. The 3.55 is a tad high for the hills around here, a 3.73 would probably be better all around gearing, like on my Dodge with the I6 Cummins. At over 140k miles my son's truck had a great emissions test recently, it doesn't seem to burn much more than 1/2 qt betwen oil changes, and evidently is one of the more durable engines that Ford made. An earlier 250 CI might be better for mileage. The Cummins in the Dodge is great, it seems to one of the most durable engines currently offered in a non-commercial vehicle.
My 300 I6 was backed by 4.11's
But it was in a 3/4-ton behind a C6. It would pull the a$$hole out of the world. It just wouldn't do it very quickly.
LOL. I did not know that engine/trans/rear combo was available. I bet that thing was unstoppable. What was the torque rating on the inline 6?
Those things seem to love turbocharging. I've seen a street rod in the 9s with a turbo I6 Ford with surprisingly little done to the engine.
I believe it was 265 or 270lb-ft. But there was no real curve. It just made full torque from idle to 4K, at which point it promptly fell on its face. At least that's what it felt like
With the 302HO in it, you'd have to get it up to about 2K, and then it would pull like a bear.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
My son has a 92 F150 with a 4.9L I6, 5 spd. The 3.55 is a tad high for the hills around here, a 3.73 would probably be better all around gearing, like on my Dodge with the I6 Cummins. At over 140k miles my son's truck had a great emissions test recently, it doesn't seem to burn much more than 1/2 qt betwen oil changes, and evidently is one of the more durable engines that Ford made. An earlier 250 CI might be better for mileage. The Cummins in the Dodge is great, it seems to one of the most durable engines currently offered in a non-commercial vehicle.
My 300 I6 was backed by 4.11's
LOL. I did not know that engine/trans/rear combo was available. I bet that thing was unstoppable. What was the torque rating on the inline 6?
Those things seem to love turbocharging. I've seen a street rod in the 9s with a turbo I6 Ford with surprisingly little done to the engine.
I believe it was 265 or 270lb-ft. But there was no real curve. It just made full torque from idle to 4K, at which point it promptly fell on its face. At least that's what it felt like
With the 302HO in it, you'd have to get it up to about 2K, and then it would pull like a bear.
I-6 or V-8 if your actually BUY a full size truck to do TRUCK STUFF...
Torque is what gets the Job done. leave the V-6 for the imports
the ford 300 C.I. I-6 has a torque curve that looks like a table top. the fuel injected version was one of the best little gas motors ever I don't know why they never got the respect they deserved. The little Mazda 5spd they backed them up with was less than desirable but that's another thread
Torque is what gets the Job done. leave the V-6 for the imports
the ford 300 C.I. I-6 has a torque curve that looks like a table top. the fuel injected version was one of the best little gas motors ever I don't know why they never got the respect they deserved. The little Mazda 5spd they backed them up with was less than desirable but that's another thread
Last edited:
I had a 97 Chev half ton 4x4, reg cab, with a 4.3 V6 and a 5 speed. I put over 200k miles on that truck. The initial cost to buy a V6 was probably $1500 less at the time, a big deal to me so I went V6 instead of V8. It was a great truck. I towed with it (probably never more than 4000 lbs though), used it to haul wood, some 4 wheeling and a lot of road miles (I'm a salesman). It was a great truck. By the way, I never even had to put a clutch in it, and it didn't have any intake gaskets leaking either. I did make one mistake though, I put a cat back exhaust on it. Like every other 6 cylinder with an exhaust, it sounded like a frog [censored] when you got on it!
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky