 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / October 2005Does vortec engine mean good?
Hi, I was looking at a minivan - astro or safar. Is the 4.3 Vortec a good engine? I just see it as a plus in the ads and wanted to know. Especially since they are higher in miles (at least the ones I can afford). Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortec More or less just a trade name. Steve > Hi, I was looking at a minivan - astro or safar. Is the 4.3 Vortec a > good engine? I just see it as a plus in the ads and wanted to know. > Especially since they are higher in miles (at least the ones I can > afford). Thanks. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortec > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>Especially since they are higher in miles (at least the ones I can >>afford). Thanks. That's what I thought. However, I have seen a very similar name on other brands now (something like Vtech). Is GM licensing the technology to others or is that just someone else using a similar name for similar technology. I am under the impression that this is GM's method to ensure lots of turbulence in the combustion chamber. Is this right? > That's what I thought. However, I have seen a very similar name on > other brands now (something like Vtech). Is GM licensing the technology > to others or is that just someone else using a similar name for similar > technology. VTEC, if that is what you are refering to, is a whole other ball of wax. VTEC is purely a Honda trademark name, but does mean something; Variable valve Timing and lift Electronic Control. The actual non-trademark acronym would be VVT; Variable Valve Timing. Learn all about the differecnt types and associated trade names here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVT > I am under the impression that this is GM's method to ensure lots of > turbulence in the combustion chamber. Is this right? I doubt it's nothing more than a trade name, period. Like the way GM says "Ecotech" or Ford says "PowerStroke" or the way Chrysler now uses the term "Hemi." Doesn't really say anything about the engine, it's just a name. (Before this causes a ruckus, look it up. They are no longer true "hemi's". They are as much of a Hemi as my '95 GM 3.4L DOHC is.) Steve > (Before this causes a ruckus, look it up. They are no longer true "hemi's". > They are as much of a Hemi as my '95 GM 3.4L DOHC is.) > > Steve If there are "degrees" of Hemi-ness, then the 426 Hemi wasn't a "true" one either since the spark plug wasn't quite central and the valve angles weren't symmetric about the axis of the cylinder, and the last "true" Hemi was the 1957 392 Hemi. The modern 5.7 Hemi is "more" of a Hemi than any quad-valve DOHC engine, though. Quad-valves are pent-roof chambers. > > (Before this causes a ruckus, look it up. They are no longer true "hemi's". > > They are as much of a Hemi as my '95 GM 3.4L DOHC is.) > > The modern 5.7 Hemi is "more" of a Hemi than any quad-valve DOHC engine, > though. Quad-valves are pent-roof chambers. True, I should have thought it over before typing. My point was, which I think was conveyed, is that the new 'Hemi' name is more marketing than design. And as pointed out by a previous poster this is not 100% true of the 'Vortec' brand as I stated earlier. Steve >>>(Before this causes a ruckus, look it up. They are no longer true > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Steve I wouldn't say it's "more" marketing than design. The big benefit of the Hemi head was never so much the shape of the combustion chamber (in many ways that was a detriment) as it was the bigger valve head size, the valve angles relative to the cylinder bank, and the port size and straightness on both intake and exhaust that the Hemi head allowed. The new "Hemi" still has ALL of that goodness, even though the chamber itself is more hemi-elliptical than hemispherical. And the revised chamber shape gets rid of most of the bad things about a Hemi- high NOX and HC emissions. In that sense, "Hemi" and "Vortec" are both single marketing words that capture a whole lot of subtle engineering features. No harm in that. > I wouldn't say it's "more" marketing than design. The big benefit of the > Hemi head was never so much the shape of the combustion chamber (in many [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > chamber shape gets rid of most of the bad things about a Hemi- high NOX > and HC emissions. The engine is still marginal from an emmissions standpoint. Check out http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html : "The Hemi design combustion chamber is one of the poorest designs for emissions - why do you think it took so long to get it into production? It almost did NOT make emissions test requirements even with the modifications. ... Today's Hemi is that (a "Hemi") in name only." As far as I can tell, the only reason for calling it a "hemi" is so they can drag in a few more suckers who think it is somehow better than a current model small block Chevrolet engine - which it isn't. Ed " > As far as I can tell, the only reason for calling it a "hemi" is so they can > drag in a few more suckers who think it is somehow better than a current > model small block Chevrolet engine - which it isn't. Actually, its measurably and objectively a lot better than the Gen III (and the Gen III is a VERY good engine- much better than the ancient "small block Chevy" that it replaced). And that's according to the admitted "Chevy guys" at PHR: http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0403phr_hemi/ > " > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0403phr_hemi/ Dodge 6.1L Hemi V-8 Power: 425 horsepower at 6,000 rpm Torque: 420 lb-ft at 4,800 rpm Chevrolet 6.0L V-8 (LS2) Power: 400 hp @ 6000 rpm Torque: 395 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm On a Horsepower per cubic inch basis - not much difference 6.1L Hemi - 425 hp, 370 cu. in - 1.15 hp/cu. in. 6.0L LS2 - 400 hp, 364.3 cu. in = 1.10 hp/cu. in. And even the Ford Mod V-8, which the Popular Hot Roding article disparaged, is similar on a horsepower per cubic inch basis (1.07 hp/cu. in.). Mustang GT 4.6L V-8 Power: 300 hp @ 5750 rpm Torque 240 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm The Chevy has the smallest outside dimension and is the lightest (and certainly cheaper to build than the "hemi"). So, all things considered, I think it is the better engine. Regards, Ed White >>" >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > On a Horsepower per cubic inch basis - not much difference HP/CID doesn't mean anything anyway. > And even the Ford Mod V-8, which the Popular Hot Roding article disparaged, > is similar on a horsepower per cubic inch basis (1.07 hp/cu. in.). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > certainly cheaper to build than the "hemi"). So, all things considered, I > think it is the better engine. Its also got short connecting rods, crummy rod-ratio, and small diameter lifters, so I'd consider it the poorest of the 3- although that's splitting hairs since its clearly quite good. In truth, the Ford Modular (iron block, not the Al version) is closer to using up all that the basic architecture can support in stock form than the other two. PHR's point was that the Hemi has much more growth potential than the others, and with its longer rods its a much sounder basic architecture. > Its also got short connecting rods, crummy rod-ratio, and small diameter > lifters, so I'd consider it the poorest of the 3- although that's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > point was that the Hemi has much more growth potential than the others, > and with its longer rods its a much sounder basic architecture. Good points, but none of these "advantages" has anything to do with it being a "hemi." The Chevy engine with the wedge head is getting practically the same power with a smaller, lighter, and simplier design (1 plug, simplier rocker arm system, etc).For a person buying a vehicle today, growth means almost nothing. And if I they want a bigger engine, then Chevy already has the 7 Litre LS7 (505 Hp). As far as I can see the main attraction to the "hemi" is the ability to claim you have a "hemi." I think it is the triumph of great marketing over good engineering. Chrysler has already been down the hemi road twice before. In the end the disadvantages of the design resulted in the engine being dropped. Even the legendary 426 Hemi in NASCAR race trim was no better than a Ford FE 427. And nobody would claim that a Ford FE was a particuarly sophiticated engine. You also have to wonder about the wisdom of spending tons of money developing a large, thirsty, enviromentally marginal engine at this time in history. On the other hand it has been a marketing bonanza. People I know who haven't considered buying a Chrysler in 40 years, are suddenly interested in Chrysler products again. And I suppose that is what really matters. Still, it just seems to me they made a lot of bad compromises so they could claim the engine was a "hemi" even if it is only marginally one. Ed > You also have to wonder about the wisdom > of spending tons of money developing a large, thirsty, enviromentally > marginal engine at this time in history. Which the 5.7 is NOT. 25 mpg in a car the size of the Magnum is quite a feat, and GM has now copied the Hemi's MDS system for their smallest Gen-III engine for that very reason. And yet it only gets 30 mpg in a little car like the Impala. > Still, it just seems to me they made a lot of > bad compromises so they could claim the engine was a "hemi" even if it is > only marginally one. I'm still not sure where teh "compromises" are. The resulting engine breathes better than its sibling 4.7L OHC cousin, has fewer parts, more growth potential, and runs cleaner not dirtier. I guess I'm not seeing the downside. >> You also have to wonder about the wisdom >> of spending tons of money developing a large, thirsty, environmentally [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Gen-III engine for that very reason. And yet it only gets 30 mpg in a > little car like the Impala. Little car? The Impala has more interior room than a Chrysler 300 (although the trunk is smaller). Plus the 5.3L Impala gets significantly better mileage than the 5.7L 300 (22 combined for the Impala vs. 20 combined for the 300). >> Still, it just seems to me they made a lot of >> bad compromises so they could claim the engine was a "hemi" even if it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > growth potential, and runs cleaner not dirtier. I guess I'm not seeing the > downside. Go back and read the Allpar reference. Notice where the Chrysler engineer was quoted as saying they barely got it to meet emission standards. And to do so they had to add a second plug and fill in the corners of the hemi shape. The engine is significantly heavier than the Chevy engine as well. Just because Chrysler screwed up the 4.7 is not a reason to celebrate the "hemi." The "hemi" does not have fewer parts than the Chevy V-8, and claiming it has "more growth potential" is just a polite way of saying it is bigger than it needed to be. How much more growth potential do you need than a SMC? And why do you give Chrysler credit for the MDS system? Who is copying who? GM tired this before and Honda has a similar system on the Pilot V-6 (only more sophisticated). And while the EPA numbers look good, how well does the MDS system do in the real world? Consumer Reports had the following to say on the subject: "The 300C's 340-hp, 5.7-liter Hemi V8 delivers effortless performance, reminiscent of American sedans in the '50s and '60s. However, it delivered poor gas mileage, despite the engine's variable-displacement system...." CU's overall mileage, mpg16 CU's city/highway, mpg10/27 CU's 150-mile trip, mpg20 A Crown Victoria, a significantly larger car with admittedly less performance, achieved better fuel economy in the CU 150 mile trip than the Chrysler 300. The overall mileage was the same. The 300 did have better highway mileage, which I suppose is the goal of the MDS. Still, one has to wonder whether this system is just another marketing gimmick (or maybe something that is tuned to give good numbers in the EPA test). And besides, the MDS system is not directly related to the "hemi" design. As you noted, it could have been just as easily applied to a traditional wedge head (which is what Chevy did). My argument is that the "hemi" part of the new engine is bogus. It is not really a true hemi, and the compromises they made to create a faux hemi were driven more by marketing needs than good engineering. On the other hand, the publicity and sales have validated the marketing decision to create a new hemi. I suppose it will only be a matter of time before Ford has to create a new "Boss" something. Ed >>>You also have to wonder about the wisdom >>>of spending tons of money developing a large, thirsty, environmentally [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Little car? The Impala has more interior room than a Chrysler 300 (although > the trunk is smaller). Well, I can't quote you cubic feet But I've had a lot of rental Impalas, a lot of rental Magnums, and own a first-gen LH. The Impala is a WHOLE lot smaller than a Chrysler LH or a Magnum. I've never sat in a 300C, so I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par with a Stratus in size. > Go back and read the Allpar reference. Notice where the Chrysler engineer > was quoted as saying they barely got it to meet emission standards. Allpar is often FOS on facts. I think whoever wrote that article was harkening back to how much trouble Chrysler was anticipating with the OLD hemi in the 70s, when they were considering replacing all the wedge engines with low-cost easy-to-produce ball-stud rocker headed Hemis. That was before computer modelling of combustion dynamics. Whatever the method, the current hemi is clean. And not a lot of effort was required- the dual plugs are even a waste-spark setup that doesn't add any hardware other than the plug wires and an extra set of plugs. The benefit is WELL worth the cost, given that it not only cleans emissions but allows the engine to run with less spark advance, futher improving fuel efficiency over a comparable single-plug wedge head. It also costs LESS to produce than the insanely simple LA 360 it replaced, and somewhat less than the 4.7 (which itself costs less than the insanely simple LA 318 it replaced). You're talking about a new engine being cheaper to build than one with 50 years of production refinement behind it- I fail to see how anyone can argue that the Hemi is "expensive" to build. > "The 300C's 340-hp, 5.7-liter Hemi V8 delivers effortless performance, > reminiscent of American sedans in the '50s and '60s. However, it delivered [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > CU's city/highway, mpg10/27 > CU's 150-mile trip, mpg20 Those numbers look pretty good for a real full-sized car with the kind of power that a 300C has. As I said, a v6 LH car barely beats 27 highway, and you have to remember that Condemner Retards tests NEW (un-broken-in) vehicles. People I know with Hemis are doing considerably better than the above once they get 15000 or so miles on them. If I have any argument with the 300C/Hemi package, it isn't the Hemi part. Its the too-square and too-heavy chassis hung around it. > My argument is that the "hemi" part of the new engine is bogus. It is not > really a true hemi, and the compromises they made to create a faux hemi were > driven more by marketing needs than good engineering. Understood, but I respecfully disagree. > I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par > with a Stratus in size. You've got to be joking. >> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par >> with a Stratus in size. > > You've got to be joking. He's more or less correct, in the real world if maybe not in the EPA's fantasy world of car size classifications. >>> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par >>> with a Stratus in size. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > He's more or less correct, in the real world if maybe not in the EPA's > fantasy world of car size classifications. I am not sure now you rate car sizes - exterior, interior, etc. The fueleconomy.gov site quotes passenger volume and luggage volume. Here are some 2006 vehicles for comparison Chrysler 300 - 103 cu ft passenger + 24 cu ft = 127 cu ft combined Chevrolet Impala - 105 cu ft passenger + 19 cu ft luggage = 124 cu ft total Ford Five Hundred - 108 cu ft passenger + 21 cu ft luggage = 129 cu ft Dodge Stratus 4 Door - 64 cu ft passenger + 16 cu ft luggage = 80 cu ft total Ford Crown Victoria -111 cu ft passenger + 21 cu ft luggage = 132 cu ft total Here is the description of passenger and luggage volume from the web site: "The passenger volume reported on this site is an estimate of the size of the passenger compartment. The luggage volume is the size of the trunk or, in station wagons and hatchbacks, the cargo space behind the second seat. In a few cases, the addition of passenger and cargo volume numbers indicate that a vehicle should be in the next higher classification. This is not the case as the data have been rounded to the nearest whole number. "The interior volume is measured using SAE Recommended Practice J1100 as per EPA Fuel economy regulations, reg. 40 CFR 600.315-82 "Classes of Comparable Automobiles." Automobile manufacturers calculate the interior volume of their vehicles and submit this information to EPA. "The SAE procedure calculates interior volume from many height, width and length dimensions inside the vehicle, including head room, foot room, seat width, etc. The trunk volume is typically determined by putting many suitcase sized boxes in the trunk and adding up the volume of each box." I can't see how you can think the Stratus is the same size as an Impala, at least on the inside. It is not even close. Ed > I am not sure now you rate car sizes - By how comfortably my cow-orkers and I fit in it when we drive it around on business trips... and if we have to rent a second car on-the-spot in order to fit us all. Been there, done THAT. :-/ exterior, interior, etc. The > fueleconomy.gov site quotes passenger volume and luggage volume. Here are > some 2006 vehicles for comparison [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ford Crown Victoria -111 cu ft passenger + 21 cu ft luggage = 132 cu ft > total Doesn't mean squat in the real world (although I'd love to know WHERE those cubic feet are being wasted). An Impala is still more cramped than a Magnum, and "feels" much like a Stratus or Malibu. In some ways, the Malibu feels more spacious. IMO, the older Intrepid/Concorde feels more roomy than any of them except the Crown Vic (and as I said I can't speak for a 300 since I've never been in one- or a Ford 500, for that matter.) >>>> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par >>>> with a Stratus in size. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I am not sure now you rate car sizes I use real-world heuristics like "How free or cramped am I at the feet, legs, hips, shoulders, arms, in the driver's seat, passenger's seat, rear seat?". > fueleconomy.gov Their numeric figures would be relevant if we wished to fill the passenger compartment with a fluid. Since we don't, they don't mean anything in the real world. You want to argue? Fine, but I get to pick our respective venues: I will be in a 288 cubic foot room 6 feet wide by 6 feet deep by 8 feet high. You will be in a 512 cubic foot room 64 feet wide by 2 feet deep by 4 feet high. That gives you an advantage of 224 cubic feet. I'll even let you have the opening arguments. DS >>>>> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par >>>>> with a Stratus in size. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > legs, hips, shoulders, arms, in the driver's seat, passenger's seat, rear > seat?". Me too, but I have not had a chance to sit in a new Impala and I've never tried the 4 door Stratus. I have tried a 300 and agree with Consumer Report's assessment that "the claustrophobic cabin and limited outward visibility are detractions." >> fueleconomy.gov > > Their numeric figures would be relevant if we wished to fill the passenger > compartment with a fluid. Did you read the explanation of what the passenger volume means? You cut it out of the reply, so maybe you did not bother to read it. Here is the relevant part again - "The interior volume is measured using SAE Recommended Practice J1100 as per EPA Fuel economy regulations, reg. 40 CFR 600.315-82 "Classes of Comparable Automobiles." Automobile manufacturers calculate the interior volume of their vehicles and submit this information to EPA. "The SAE procedure calculates interior volume from many height, width and length dimensions inside the vehicle, including head room, foot room, seat width, etc....." It does not sound like a straight "fluid volume" like you are implying. I certainly recognize that different people find a car with a particular interior arrangement more comfortable than another, supposedly larger car. However, the numerical differences between the Stratus and Impala are simply too large to give any credibility to the claim that the Stratus is almost as big as the Impala. Here are the basic measurements of the three from Edmunds.com: Measurement Impala 300 Stratus Front Head Room: 39.4 in. 38.7 in. 37.6 in. Front Hip Room: 56.4 in. 55.9 in. 52.5 in. Front Shoulder Room: 58.7 in. 57.7 in. 55.2 in. Rear Head Room: 37.8 in. 38.0 in. 35.8 in. Rear Shoulder Room: 58.6 in. 57.7 in. 54.7 in. Rear Hip Room: 57.2 in. 55.9 in. 53.1 in. Front Leg Room: 42.3 in. 41.8 in. 42.3 in. Rear Leg Room: 37.6 in. 40.2 in. 38.1 in. Of these three cars, the 300 is the only one I have actually sat in. And it was not particularly spacious and the sight lines for a tall person like me were undesirable. The numbers say the Impala has the largest interior of the three. Until I actually sit in one, there is some doubt, but it seems to me if you are claiming the Impala is in the same size class as a Stratus, then you need to say the same thing about the 300. The Ford 500 feels much larger than the Chrysler 300, except I dislike the way the wheel well cuts into the passengers foot space. Interestingly on the drivers side, they provide a dead pedal which compensates somewhat. They should add one on the passengers side as well. > Since we don't, they don't mean anything in the real world. You want to > argue? Fine, but I get to pick our respective venues: I will be in a 288 > cubic foot room 6 feet wide by 6 feet deep by 8 feet high. You will be in > a 512 cubic foot room 64 feet wide by 2 feet deep by 4 feet high. That > gives you an advantage of 224 cubic feet. I'll even let you have the > opening arguments. What has this got to do with the discussion of which car is larger? Surely you don't mean to imply that there are these sort of radical dimensional differences exist between cars? Is this one of those famous strawman arguments? Ed >>> fueleconomy.gov >> >> Their numeric figures would be relevant if we wished to fill the passenger >> compartment with a fluid. > > Did you read the explanation of what the passenger volume means? Yes, it's another of SAE's laughable standards that takes a bunch of real measurements, applies assorted handwaving to them and comes up with a composite number that doesn't mean anything. >> Since we don't, they don't mean anything in the real world. You want to >> argue? Fine, but I get to pick our respective venues: I will be in a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What has this got to do with the discussion of which car is larger? It was a lengthy way of saying that 64 cubic feet of which 58 are usable yields an *effectively* larger car than 104 cubic feet of which 49 are usable. > >>>>> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par > >>>>> with a Stratus in size. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Rear Shoulder Room: 58.6 in. 57.7 in. 54.7 in. > Rear Hip Room: 57.2 in. 55.9 in. 53.1 in. > Front Leg Room: 42.3 in. 41.8 in. 42.3 in. > Rear Leg Room: 37.6 in. 40.2 in. 38.1 in. Notice these numbers. They say that the cabin of the Impala is about 1/2 inch shorter in length than the Stratus. The Stratus does have a narrower body though. Measurement wise the 300 and the impala are VERY close. > Of these three cars, the 300 is the only one I have actually sat in. And it > was not particularly spacious and the sight lines for a tall person like me [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Ed >> Measurement Impala 300 Stratus >> Front Head Room: 39.4 in. 38.7 in. 37.6 in. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > narrower body though. Measurement wise the 300 and the impala are VERY > close. I am not sure about the cabin being 1/2 inch shorter, since the leg room measurement is not a straight front to rear measurement and seat configuration palys into the number (and interestingly, Consumer Reports quotes a lower front leg room number for the Stratus). However, that is the only dimension where you can make an arguement that the Stratus is close to the same size as the Impala. Clearly the Impala's cabin is much wider and TALLER (2 inces or so). Anyhow, I think you now can see that the Implala is evey bit as large a car as the 300 (and Charger and Magnum). So Steve Mackie's comment that you had to be joking when you climed the Impala was close to the same size as a Stratus is true - right? Either that are you need to make the same claim for all the current Chrysler "large" cars. Ed >>I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par >>with a Stratus in size. > > You've got to be joking. Not at all. Yes, its a little bit bigger than a Stratus, but its closer to a Stratus than it is to an Intrepid, Magnum, or Charger. Don't get me wrong, its cool that they offer a powerful v8 in such a little package- it should be as much of a rocket as you can get within front-drive traction limits. > > (Before this causes a ruckus, look it up. They are no longer true "hemi's". > > They are as much of a Hemi as my '95 GM 3.4L DOHC is.) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The modern 5.7 Hemi is "more" of a Hemi than any quad-valve DOHC engine, > though. Quad-valves are pent-roof chambers. The heads off a current Chrysler "hemi" look like Ford Cleveland heads to me, Ed > The heads off a current Chrysler "hemi" look like Ford Cleveland heads to > me, > > Ed Kinda similar, except for valve placement and dual plugs. And again, the main "good" thing about the Cleveland head compared to the Windsor head was the port size/shape. > I doubt it's nothing more than a trade name, period. Like the way GM says > "Ecotech" or Ford says "PowerStroke" or the way Chrysler now uses the term [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Steve But isn't the hemi revival engine still more of a hemi than a wedge? Don't the valves come in on opposite sides of the chamber, instead of being in line like most wedge heads? I am under the impression that MOST engines today are wedges with squish, to add turbulence and lower octane requirement. Don't have one of the new hemis, but I would suspect if it is close to a real hemi shape it would have a higher octane rating that wedges. >> I doubt it's nothing more than a trade name, period. Like the way GM says >> "Ecotech" or Ford says "PowerStroke" or the way Chrysler now uses the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Don't the valves come in on opposite sides of the chamber, instead of > being in line like most wedge heads? Yes and yes, which is why it IS technically a Hemi in spite of the elliptical chamber shape. I am under the impression that > MOST engines today are wedges with squish, to add turbulence and lower > octane requirement. Don't have one of the new hemis, but I would > suspect if it is close to a real hemi shape it would have a higher > octane rating that wedges. They worked hard on the details of the head and piston crown shape, as well as adding dual plugs, to allow it to run on regular gas at the same compression as a wedge head. There are many paths to the same destination, more than one way to skin a cat, etc. :-) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortec > > More or less just a trade name. > > Steve Indeed it is more than just a trade name. The Vortec name specifically refers to the cylinder heads. This article explains it pretty well: http://www.chevymania.com/tech/vortec.htm > > More or less just a trade name. > > Indeed it is more than just a trade name. The Vortec name specifically > refers to the cylinder heads. Ahhh....pictures help. > Hi, I was looking at a minivan - astro or safar. Is the 4.3 Vortec a > good engine? I just see it as a plus in the ads and wanted to know. > Especially since they are higher in miles (at least the ones I can > afford). Thanks. To answer your question about being any good. I put 255,000 miles on a 1986 Astro 4.3, the only thing I did to the engine was replace the valve seals. I presently own a 1997 Safari with 230,000 and it runs great. Larry Are they top heavy? Hard to drive? > Are they top heavy? Hard to drive? They're like all other minivans- comfortable, but piggish. Not particularly top-heavy nor hard to drive, but not agile or quick. IMO, the Astro is less *comfortable* to drive than some other minivans because, like older full-size vans, it has a fairly large "doghouse" over the engine that intrudes into the driver and front-seat passenger leg room. Not nearly as much as a true full-size van, but much more than a transverse-engine minivan like a Caravan, Voyager, Windstar, Montana, etc. OTOH, being rear-drive its got a tough enough drivetrain to actually tow some serious weight, which none of the FWD minivans have. Its more of a "working" van whereas the others are "family" vans, IMO. (FWIW, my company has a few Astros, Montanas, and Caravans, to I've driven them all on occasion.) You should drive it YOURSELF before you buy it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.