What is GM going to do with the 4.2 L inline 6 cylinder used in the previous model SUV's ?(TrailBlazer, Envoy, Bravada) Did GM ever use this engine in anything else such as a standard engine in a Pick Up Truck ? Seem to be a waste of a fine inline 6 that made good power and torque. Any comments ?
GM's 4.2 liter Inline 6???
- Thread starter charbaby
- Start date
- Status
Not sure why they didn't EOL the 4.3 V6 in favor of this engine.
Engine is a gas pig, BIL has a Trail Blazer, it swills gas.
He gets maybe 15 mpg highway with it, have taken a couple of long 300 mile trips mostly highway with him and we calculted his mileage.
My Durango with a 5.9 V8 gets better highway milage and that isnt saying much. I assume it goes bye bye since they have switched to there newer V6 DI engines.
I believe they also have a 5 cylinder based off it and use it in the smaller trucks, Colorod, Canyon
He gets maybe 15 mpg highway with it, have taken a couple of long 300 mile trips mostly highway with him and we calculted his mileage.
My Durango with a 5.9 V8 gets better highway milage and that isnt saying much. I assume it goes bye bye since they have switched to there newer V6 DI engines.
I believe they also have a 5 cylinder based off it and use it in the smaller trucks, Colorod, Canyon
Last edited:
I had a YukonXL Denali 6.0L that got .5 MPG less (15.1mpg) than my friends dog 4.2L Trailblazer (15.6mpg)...do the mass calculation on that one boys and you chalk up a huge FAIL for GM. My Toyota 4Runner 4.0L V6 gets 20-23mpg pushing the same size truck as the trailblazer.
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
What is GM going to do with the 4.2 L inline 6 cylinder used in the previous model SUV's ?(TrailBlazer, Envoy, Bravada) Did GM ever use this engine in anything else such as a standard engine in a Pick Up Truck ? Seem to be a waste of a fine inline 6 that made good power and torque. Any comments ?
I had high hopes for it because I am a fan of inline sixes over v-sixes, but found it a huge disappointment. It totally lacked the tractor-like gutsy torque delivery of, say, the Jeep 4.0 inline 6. Overall length of an inline 6 makes it very hard to justify with today's crash safety requirements, and my hunch is that the 4.2 just didn't have enough positives going for it to outweigh the negatives. The days of big inline sixes for passenger cars and light trucks are probably just about over, if not already over :-( BMW will find a way to keep using small inline sixes for their performance and smoothness, but that's about it.
What is GM going to do with the 4.2 L inline 6 cylinder used in the previous model SUV's ?(TrailBlazer, Envoy, Bravada) Did GM ever use this engine in anything else such as a standard engine in a Pick Up Truck ? Seem to be a waste of a fine inline 6 that made good power and torque. Any comments ?
I had high hopes for it because I am a fan of inline sixes over v-sixes, but found it a huge disappointment. It totally lacked the tractor-like gutsy torque delivery of, say, the Jeep 4.0 inline 6. Overall length of an inline 6 makes it very hard to justify with today's crash safety requirements, and my hunch is that the 4.2 just didn't have enough positives going for it to outweigh the negatives. The days of big inline sixes for passenger cars and light trucks are probably just about over, if not already over :-( BMW will find a way to keep using small inline sixes for their performance and smoothness, but that's about it.
Last edited:
GM's truck based SUVs will use the LS based V8 in all its incarnations (4.8, 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, 6.2) and the car based CUVs will use the 3.6 V6. AFAIK, they haven't adapted the 3.6 to RWD applications (yet).
the trailblazer I6 IS a pig, though. I work w/ someone who has one; besides the mpg, it's been reliable for him, over 130K.
the trailblazer I6 IS a pig, though. I work w/ someone who has one; besides the mpg, it's been reliable for him, over 130K.
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
I dunno. I really liked the Atlas/Vortec 4.2L I6 the little 2yrs I owned one. Like said, MPGs are 20 on it's very best light, steady-state day. Power I thought was awesome, but you had to get some revs up being DOHC. Idle is so smooth, quiet and low on them, you have to look at the tach to see if it's running. They are fairly simple to work on. Nice simple single cat exhaust w/ 'only' 2 O2 sensors, no EGR, PVC hard plumbed from block skirt to IM, etc. The worst part were the vehicles GM dropped them into. I personally think they'd do well in a GM pickup. See the hole through the oil pan? That was for the front axle on the GM T360 chassis (trailblazer,etc). They really went thru great lengths to set it low under the hood.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mpvue
GM's truck based SUVs will use the LS based V8 in all its incarnations (4.8, 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, 6.2) and the car based CUVs will use the 3.6 V6. AFAIK, they haven't adapted the 3.6 to RWD applications (yet).
the trailblazer I6 IS a pig, though. I work w/ someone who has one; besides the mpg, it's been reliable for him, over 130K.
The base V-6 in the Camaro is the 304HP 3.6, powering the rear wheels.
GM's truck based SUVs will use the LS based V8 in all its incarnations (4.8, 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, 6.2) and the car based CUVs will use the 3.6 V6. AFAIK, they haven't adapted the 3.6 to RWD applications (yet).
the trailblazer I6 IS a pig, though. I work w/ someone who has one; besides the mpg, it's been reliable for him, over 130K.
The base V-6 in the Camaro is the 304HP 3.6, powering the rear wheels.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Wasn't entirely the engine's fault - rest of the truck around it was super-heavy. I think it was a fairly effecient DOHC design....
My Expedition weighs in at 6,100lbs (measured, spec is 5,345lbs, which I would assume is dry), the Trailblazer (non EXT) weighs 4,600lbs.
My 5.4L gives me routinely 18+ Mpg on the highway. In-town it is a pig, but that's to be expected.
And while giving up about 30HP to the DOHC I6, it has an almost 100lb-ft torque advantage.
Comparing the two engines, one is obviously a much better choice for a TRUCK/SUV:
GM 4.2L I6 (2006):
HP: 291 @ 6,000RPM
TQ: 277 @ 4,800RPM
Ford 5.4L V8 (2002):
HP: 260 @ 4,500RPM
TQ: 350 @ 2,500RPM
I imagine in a light truck or car, the I6 would really do quite well. But its high-winding power-band is going to make it feel anaemic in a truck, and it is going to feel like a turd out of the hole. I imagine its lack of low-end torque likely contributes to its abysmal fuel economy as well.
Wasn't entirely the engine's fault - rest of the truck around it was super-heavy. I think it was a fairly effecient DOHC design....
My Expedition weighs in at 6,100lbs (measured, spec is 5,345lbs, which I would assume is dry), the Trailblazer (non EXT) weighs 4,600lbs.
My 5.4L gives me routinely 18+ Mpg on the highway. In-town it is a pig, but that's to be expected.
And while giving up about 30HP to the DOHC I6, it has an almost 100lb-ft torque advantage.
Comparing the two engines, one is obviously a much better choice for a TRUCK/SUV:
GM 4.2L I6 (2006):
HP: 291 @ 6,000RPM
TQ: 277 @ 4,800RPM
Ford 5.4L V8 (2002):
HP: 260 @ 4,500RPM
TQ: 350 @ 2,500RPM
I imagine in a light truck or car, the I6 would really do quite well. But its high-winding power-band is going to make it feel anaemic in a truck, and it is going to feel like a turd out of the hole. I imagine its lack of low-end torque likely contributes to its abysmal fuel economy as well.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: mpvue
GM's truck based SUVs will use the LS based V8 in all its incarnations (4.8, 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, 6.2) and the car based CUVs will use the 3.6 V6. AFAIK, they haven't adapted the 3.6 to RWD applications (yet).
the trailblazer I6 IS a pig, though. I work w/ someone who has one; besides the mpg, it's been reliable for him, over 130K.
The base V-6 in the Camaro is the 304HP 3.6, powering the rear wheels.
also the cts and g8.
Originally Posted By: mpvue
GM's truck based SUVs will use the LS based V8 in all its incarnations (4.8, 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, 6.2) and the car based CUVs will use the 3.6 V6. AFAIK, they haven't adapted the 3.6 to RWD applications (yet).
the trailblazer I6 IS a pig, though. I work w/ someone who has one; besides the mpg, it's been reliable for him, over 130K.
The base V-6 in the Camaro is the 304HP 3.6, powering the rear wheels.
also the cts and g8.
Originally Posted By: wapacz
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: mpvue
GM's truck based SUVs will use the LS based V8 in all its incarnations (4.8, 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, 6.2) and the car based CUVs will use the 3.6 V6. AFAIK, they haven't adapted the 3.6 to RWD applications (yet).
the trailblazer I6 IS a pig, though. I work w/ someone who has one; besides the mpg, it's been reliable for him, over 130K.
The base V-6 in the Camaro is the 304HP 3.6, powering the rear wheels.
also the cts and g8.
then I stand corrected, thanks! it seems the 3.6 is the new corporate GM engine, it's going to wind up in everything. my wife wants an outlook or acadia and they have the 3.6.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: mpvue
GM's truck based SUVs will use the LS based V8 in all its incarnations (4.8, 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, 6.2) and the car based CUVs will use the 3.6 V6. AFAIK, they haven't adapted the 3.6 to RWD applications (yet).
the trailblazer I6 IS a pig, though. I work w/ someone who has one; besides the mpg, it's been reliable for him, over 130K.
The base V-6 in the Camaro is the 304HP 3.6, powering the rear wheels.
also the cts and g8.
then I stand corrected, thanks! it seems the 3.6 is the new corporate GM engine, it's going to wind up in everything. my wife wants an outlook or acadia and they have the 3.6.
Great Feedback! Much I didn't know about the engine.
I believe this engine was an Isuzu design. They used the 5cyl version in the Hummer 3 before they woke up and put an optional V8 in it. And they used the 5 cyl version in the Canyon too. I like inline 6's as well and wished it would have been more successful.
It was a brave experiment. But the packaging is just too much for GM, a V6 is lighter and cheaper to make. No Isuzu lineage involved in the I-6.
That Direct Injection 3.6 is one of the most powerful ones on the road, a real runner in my friends Camaro with a stick.
That Direct Injection 3.6 is one of the most powerful ones on the road, a real runner in my friends Camaro with a stick.
Originally Posted By: mcrn
I believe this engine was an Isuzu design. They used the 5cyl version in the Hummer 3 before they woke up and put an optional V8 in it. And they used the 5 cyl version in the Canyon too. I like inline 6's as well and wished it would have been more successful.
No, the 4.2 I6 engine was NOT an Isuzu design. We researched this extensively over at Trailvoy. This engine was designed by GM engineers from the ground up.
BTW, those who are saying they know people that are only getting 15 MPG on the freeway with this engine, I say there is either something wrong with the vehicle, or the driver has a lead foot.
My EXT will hit 19 - 20 easily going 70 - 75 MPH. The EXT is at least 300 - 400 lbs. heavier than the SWB (short wheel base) units. I drove my TB between Southern Ca. and Phoenix numerous times over the last 4 years - which is around 400 miles each way.
Some people at Trailvoy with the SWB units claim 24 - 25 MPG with a "tune". I have no proof to their claims one way or another.
Edit: Here I found the article. Actually Joel started the post.
http://forums.trailvoy.com/showthread.php?t=14572&highlight=designed+engine
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWH/is_3_113/ai_72117172/
I believe this engine was an Isuzu design. They used the 5cyl version in the Hummer 3 before they woke up and put an optional V8 in it. And they used the 5 cyl version in the Canyon too. I like inline 6's as well and wished it would have been more successful.
No, the 4.2 I6 engine was NOT an Isuzu design. We researched this extensively over at Trailvoy. This engine was designed by GM engineers from the ground up.
BTW, those who are saying they know people that are only getting 15 MPG on the freeway with this engine, I say there is either something wrong with the vehicle, or the driver has a lead foot.
My EXT will hit 19 - 20 easily going 70 - 75 MPH. The EXT is at least 300 - 400 lbs. heavier than the SWB (short wheel base) units. I drove my TB between Southern Ca. and Phoenix numerous times over the last 4 years - which is around 400 miles each way.
Some people at Trailvoy with the SWB units claim 24 - 25 MPG with a "tune". I have no proof to their claims one way or another.
Edit: Here I found the article. Actually Joel started the post.
http://forums.trailvoy.com/showthread.php?t=14572&highlight=designed+engine
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWH/is_3_113/ai_72117172/
Last edited:
I think this a nice engine in search of a sporty car to call home. An inline-6 is a proper engine for such a car IMHO. Something like a Solstice, for example...
Well, if packaging issues and MPG are the engines short commings and the 3.6 DI is a better replacement, then long live the 3.6. I mean, the 4.2 engine was only installed in the TrailBlazer, Envoy and Bravada(maybe the Rennier too) but, that's it! I didn't realize the engines short commings. Friends of mine who have these GM SUV's love the smooth quiet engine and don't really complain about MPG. For where the prices of fuel have gone, I can't beleive those who could care less about MPG.
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted By: robbobster
I think this a nice engine in search of a sporty car to call home. An inline-6 is a proper engine for such a car IMHO. Something like a Solstice, for example...
I can't find it, but there is someone who built a custom 1960's station wagon & dropped a GM 4.2L under the hood. He had a custom ignition and fuel management system on it, it may have had a turbo and manual trans as well. It put out some impressive numbers IIRC. Was really cool looking for a grocery getter as well.
Joel
I think this a nice engine in search of a sporty car to call home. An inline-6 is a proper engine for such a car IMHO. Something like a Solstice, for example...
I can't find it, but there is someone who built a custom 1960's station wagon & dropped a GM 4.2L under the hood. He had a custom ignition and fuel management system on it, it may have had a turbo and manual trans as well. It put out some impressive numbers IIRC. Was really cool looking for a grocery getter as well.
Joel
- Status
