 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Trucks / February 2008Vortec 4.3L V-6 -- Opinions Wanted.
It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this GM recall real??") With the exception of the GM passenger car diesels, I feel that the 4.3L Vortec V-6 is possibly the biggest lemon that any vehicle manufacturer has ever palmed off its unsuspecting customers. I am offering my negative experience and negative opinions of the 4.3 Vortec V-6, but I would welcome any feedback. The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact, it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of the 5.7L (350 cubic inch) V-8, to create a 4.3L (265 cubic inch) V-6. But the problem with this design is that the 5.7 V-8 is a balanced engine (two pistons up/two pistons down -- two piston up/two pistons down), but the 4.3 V-6 is an unbalanced engine (two pistons up/one piston down -- two pistons down/one piston up). This V-6 imbalance is made worse due to the massive size and huge displacement of the 5.7L pistons and GM has been unsuccessful in its attempts to get the 4.3 engine to stop shaking. The inherent failure of the 4.3 engine design was addressed by GM when it released its smaller 4.8L (295 cubic inch) V-8 engine. The 4.8L V-8 is 30 cubic inches (11%) larger than the 4.3L V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the 4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy. Around 1990, GM was very concerned with producing a low-priced, full-size pickup which would deliver unusually-high gas mileage. This gas miser would then be used to offset GM's extremely profitable gas hogs. In order to accomplish its goal, GM introduced a C1500 pickup which would actually deliver its 18/24 MPG rating. This gas-saving, loss-leader was built around a 160 HP 4.3 Vortec V-6, with a Getrag 5-speed manual transmission and a standard 3.08 differential. The key to higher gas mileage figures, for all GM truck engines, was the Getrag 5-speed manual transmission, which delivered 15-20% higher gas mileage than trucks with automatic transmissions. GM was so anxious to produce this gas-saving, manual transmission vehicle that it offered a $1500 "Manual Transmission Bonus Package" incentive, which lured in suckers, such as myself, who bought the atrocious 4.3 Vortec V-6. For some reason, my 1990 Chevrolet C1500 California 4.3 truck came with a smog pump, while other 1990 C1500 models with 5.0 and 5.7 V-8 engines did not have smog pumps. This smog pump robbed the 4.3 of power that it couldn't spare. My original 4.3 was the epitome of the old joke that GMC stands for Garage Man's Companion. My first complaint of constant 5th gear pinging was remedied by the dealer by retarding the spark. The pinging didn't go away and retarding the spark made the truck feel like it was pulling a trailer. I endured the pinging and low power for a month. Then, through a stroke of luck, a mechanic discovered a service bulletin which revealed that GM had released a new PROM for my vehicle which was designed to correct an engine flare that occurred when shifting between gears with a manual transmission. Even though my truck didn't have this shifting problem, the service manager reasoned that the new PROM might have other re-designed features which could fix the pinging. Fortunately, he was right. My 4.3 was mechanically-noisy, especially so after a cold start, when the engine would race uncontrollably at a high idle until it warmed up. The engine also vibrated badly, particularly in the 1200 to 2000 RPM range. To my dismay, a GM service bulletin revealed that this was a "1200 RPM Shake" and that this severe vibration was considered to be normal operation for the 4.3. The engine speed compensation never worked when the air conditioner was operating, so the engine would buck and jerk when shifting gears when the compressor was engaged. When the truck was stopped in traffic, the compressor would drag RPMs down to the point of nearly killing the engine. I would either have to speed up the engine by pressing down on the gas pedal or turn off the AC when stopped in traffic. The dealer was never able to fix this problem. After 106 thousand miles, the 4.3 Vortec V-6 developed a loud knocking noise and removal of the valve covers revealed that the engine had a dry side. One side of the engine was clean and gleaming with oil, while the other side was charred and blacked due to oil depravation. I had religiously changed the oil and filter every 2500 miles, but to no avail. The engine was ruined and would have to be replaced. I decided to go with a Goodwrench rebuilt engine, however, the dealer told me that the original 1990 4.3 had been replaced with an "improved" 200 HP version. I think he mentioned something about a "roller cam", but I'm not sure. In any event, the new engine did have more power, but it used more gas. Then, after 6000 miles, the Goodwrench engine spun a bearing and needed to be replaced under warranty. The next Goodwrench engine ran well enough for 110 miles, but it was starting to use oil. The "1200 RPM Shake" and air conditioning problems continued to plague this engine, as well. Finally, in February 2004, the vehicle was branded as a "Gross Polluter" and I was only able to get $1000 for it from a wholesaler. I disclosed this SMOG problem to the man who bought my truck, but because the truck scored well in the hydrocarbon section and had only failed one of the NOX tests, he thought that the problem would be relatively simple to fix -- maybe a loose vacuum hose or a bad catalytic converter. It turned out that he needed to spend over $1300 to get the truck smogged. Fortunately, he was still able to sell the truck for a modest profit. While I see others who have gotten 200 thousand miles of trouble-free miles from their 5.7 (350) engines, I had to suffer through three 4.3 V-6 engines to obtain the same mileage. The money I saved on gas was more than offset by the downtime and expenses that I incurred while dealing with the deplorable 4.3 Vortec V-6. My overall feeling is that the 4.3 Vortec V-6 is a piece of crap. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 story to tell. > While I see others who have gotten 200 thousand miles of trouble-free > miles from their 5.7 (350) engines, I had to suffer through three 4.3 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 > story to tell. Anyone buying a full-sized truck with a mid-sized motor gets what they deserve. I have a S-10 with the 4.3L and it is a great combo. Yes they shake because they are unbalance, but it's a truck. Pull your tampon out. Trade it in and get the Toyota you've been really wanting. Big Chris > My overall feeling is that the 4.3 Vortec V-6 is a piece of crap. I > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec >V-6 story to tell. <<Anyone buying a full-sized truck with a mid-sized motor gets what they deserve. I have a S-10 with the 4.3L and it is a great combo. Yes they shake because they are unbalance, but it's a truck. Pull your tampon out. Trade it in and get the Toyota you've been really wanting. Big Chris>> Although my original 160HP 1990 4.3 lacked jackrabbit power, it was adequate, particularly with the 5-speed as opposed to an automatic. The two replacement 200HP 4.3 engines had more than enough power and required shifting from overdrive down to 4th gear only on steeper grades. My complaint is that I had mechanical problems with the first two 4.3s and the third 4.3 was on the verge of going bad when I sold it. And it's funny that you should mention my getting a Toyota. My 1978 20R Toyota HiLux pickup had 185 thousand nearly trouble free miles on it when I sold it in 1990. I never did any work on the engine, the 5-speed transmission needed only one clutch, and I required no rear end or suspension repairs. The problem with the Toyota was that the truck just wasn't big enough. Even the new "full size" Toyota Tundra does not have a full size bed. Yes, I would really rather have a Toyota. However, I am -- so far -- very happy with my 2004 Silverado Work Truck, which has a 4.8L V-8 and 4-speed automatic transmission. On the downside, the gas mileage that I have gotten with this truck has been hovering between 15.3 and 18.4 MPG, even with the standard 3.42 differential. I am inclined to think that this truck would actually deliver its 20 MPG highway rating if I ever took it on an extended trip. Sorry to hear of One-Shot's problems with the 4.3. I have a 2003 Savana (7,200 lb GVW) van with the 4.3. I only have had it for 18 mos., but it has been a great engine and great vehicle so far. I have had zero problems with it, it has never been back to the dealer, though there is a recall to replace the rear license plate light (since when does a rear license plate light merit a recall?). Most of my driving is in Los Angeles traffic, but I did monitor my gas mileage on a 1,000 mile round trip on the freeway, and it averaged 20.3 MPG with less than 2,000 miles on the odometer at the time. I have not checked it since, but I have to think it probably is even better now that the engine is broken in. The 2003 4.3 passes smog here in California as an ultra low emission vehicle (ULEV) even without an EGR valve, which should stand a testament to its efficiency. Here are a couple sites with some info/specs on this engine: http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/vortec/apps/vehicle/4300.htm http://media.gm.com:8221/division/2004_prodinfo/powertrain/truck/index.html What sold me on this particular engine is that it basically is the rugged iron 350 V8 with a pair of cylinders removed from the center. As noted, it is a large bore and stroke engine (like the old V8), is made of iron, does not seem to have a lot of the cylinder head and intake manifold leaks that many of the aluminum head engines seem to have, GM has made millions of them and appears to have refined it. My engine is very smooth (balance shaft and enhanced mounts). But what sold me on the engine was that it ought to be rugged, it can get 20 mpg in a cargo van, and it develops peak torque (260 ft lb) at an incredibly low 2,800 rpm. Right off idle, this engine has great torque, feels like a large V8, just what I wanted in a truck. I believe the large bore and stroke, combined with a cam profile, make this engine exceptionally "torquey" for it's displacement and fuel economy. As a comparison, the 4.8L V8 produces slightly more torque (285 lb ft), but only at 4,000 RPM.. The 4.3 has great "grunt" off the line with no fuss, no muss. Now climbing in the mountains with a load, it only has 200 HP, so the four-speed automatic will downshift more than if it had 6.0 litter V8, but it has never been unable to hold the speed set on the cruise control. It has roller rockers and roller lifters, a cast aluminum oil pan that bolts into the transmission as well, very sophisticated fuel injection and computer engine management systems, no noticeable noise or vibration, and great drivability and economy. One-Shot, I am not trying to dismiss anything you experienced with your engines, but just wanted to offer up that I could not be happier with the 2003 4.3L in my GMC cargo van. old bonehead >It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's >poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > <<Sorry to hear of One-Shot's problems with the 4.3. I have a 2003 Savana (7,200 lb GVW) van with the 4.3. I only have had it for 18 mos., but it has been a great engine and great vehicle so far.>> <<My engine is very smooth (balance shaft and enhanced mounts).>> I'm glad to hear that GM has refined its 2003 4.3 V-6. The one that they sold me in 1990 as well as the two Goodwrench rebuilts from the 1992-1995 era were not nearly as sophisticated as yours. I still feel cheated that GM learned from its early 4.3 V-6 design mistakes while I had to pay for them. <<But what sold me on the engine was that it ought to be rugged, it can get 20 mpg in a cargo van, and it develops peak torque (260 ft lb) at an incredibly low 2,800 rpm. Right off idle, this engine has great torque, feels like a large V8, just what I wanted in a truck. I believe the large bore and stroke, combined with a cam profile, make this engine exceptionally "torquey" for it's displacement and fuel economy. As a comparison, the 4.8L V8 produces slightly more torque (285 lb ft), but only at 4,000 RPM. The 4.3 has great "grunt" off the line with no fuss, no muss.>> And all this from the "standard" engine! I sincerely hope that you continue to get good service from your 4.3. I was so disgusted with my 4.3 V-6 experience that I gladly paid the additional $945 to get the Vortec 4800 V-8 in my 2004 Silverado. >I was so disgusted with my 4.3 V-6 experience that I gladly paid the >additional $945 to get the Vortec 4800 V-8 in my 2004 Silverado. > > Hi Scot, Regardless of your previous poor experience with the 4.3L, you turned around and bought a GM 4.8L -- I think that says something. I do think GM is building some very good machines these days. The 4.8L you have has a higher compression ratio (more efficient) than the 4.3L, is balanced "naturally" (does not need a balance shaft), has aluminum heads (better thermal transfer), shorter stroke, smaller bore, etc. It is the next generation smaller truck engine, and I think you will like it. I was torn between it and the 4.3L, but the 4.8L for cargo vans only came with the higher GVW and did not have rack and pinion steering. It was more "truckish",but when I did the balance sheet for my usage, the 4.3 with the higher axle ratio (MPG) just made more sense for me. I think GM offers more engine/axle ratio combinations for the pick ups than for the vans. For the vans, you can get the 4.3L with a high ratio rear axle and rack and pinion steering, but if you go to the 4.8L, you get R/B steering, lower rear axle ratios and higher GVW. It depends on what you are doing with the truck, Good luck with your new truck. I do think you will be happy. GM is making some mighty fine trucks these days. bonehead One-Shot Scot wrote: >I was so disgusted with my 4.3 V-6 experience that I gladly paid the >additional $945 to get the Vortec 4800 V-8 in my 2004 Silverado. <<Hi Scot, Regardless of your previous poor experience with the 4.3L, you turned around and bought a GM 4.8L -- I think that says something. Yes, I did buy another GM truck. I had only three choices for a full size pickup: Dodge, Ford or Chevrolet/GMC. In spite of all the trouble that I had with my 1990 Chevrolet C1500, I still prefer the ride and handling characteristics of GM trucks. <<I do think GM is building some very good machines these days. The 4.8L you have has a higher compression ratio (more efficient) than the 4.3L, is balanced "naturally" (does not need a balance shaft), has aluminum heads (better thermal transfer), shorter stroke, smaller bore, etc. It is the next generation smaller truck engine, and I think you will like it.>> I appreciate your telling me this. My decision to buy a new truck was forced on me rather suddenly. In February, my 1990 4.3L V-6 failed smog and was declared a gross polluter and I decided not to fix it. This gave me until the end of April to find another truck before my registration came due. A local Chevrolet dealer had a Silverado Work Truck with a 4.8L V-8, 4-speed automatic and 3.42 axle in stock and he was willing to sell it at invoice price plus throw in a $500 loyalty certificate and a bed liner. My credit was approved and I was able to drive the truck home with nothing down and get a 60 month 0% GMAC loan. Now, I am doing my research on the 4.8L V-8 after buying it. <<I was torn between it and the 4.3L, but the 4.8L for cargo vans only came with the higher GVW and did not have rack and pinion steering. It was more "truckish",but when I did the balance sheet for my usage, the 4.3 with the higher axle ratio (MPG) just made more sense for me.>> <<I think GM offers more engine/axle ratio combinations for the pick ups than for the vans. For the vans, you can get the 4.3L with a high ratio rear axle and rack and pinion steering, but if you go to the 4.8L, you get R/B steering, lower rear axle ratios and higher GVW. It depends on what you are doing with the truck,>> <<Good luck with your new truck. I do think you will be happy. GM is making some mighty fine trucks these days. bonehead>> I think you're right. So far, the new truck is running great and I have not had to take it back to the dealer for anything other than an oil change. Must be bad luck, as I have a 1993 Chevy Astro with the 4.3 V6 and over 130,000 miles on it. I have done two tune ups and regular oil changes and I have not had nary one problem out of it. The joker never has failed to start, except for dead batteries and forgetting to put the ignition interrupting plug in before starting. Oh yea and no 1200 rpm shake either to speak of. 90% of my miles are highway miles. JMHO and Experience TM > One-Shot Scot wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > not had to take it back to the dealer for anything other than an oil > change. > <<Sorry to hear of One-Shot's problems with the 4.3. I have a 2003 > Savana (7,200 lb GVW) van with the 4.3. I only have had it for 18 mos., [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I was so disgusted with my 4.3 V-6 experience that I gladly paid the > additional $945 to get the Vortec 4800 V-8 in my 2004 Silverado. Just so you know I have a 88 S10 with a 4.3 and a 700R4 tranny. Yesterday it just passed 197,000. I have done all the maintenance on it like the manual says. I have had to replace the alt. twice and the water pump once, thats it besides the maint. items. Never had to do a thing to the tranny eather other than regular service. I wish they would put one in the Colorado/Canyon then I would seriously consider buying one. > The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact, > it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the > 4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy. Well, if nothing else, you are certainly "un-informed" about the design of the 4.3 Vortec engine. They have had balance shafts for years now and are a good running, and smooth running engines. I wouldn't recommend one for a full size truck, though I have a few friends who have the 4.3 in the full size trucks, and for just blasting around town, or hauling a bit of a load, they work great. We do almost "no" mechanical work to these engines in the dealership. They have proven to be very reliable and trouble free. They do have the intake manifold gasket concern that the v-8's do, but even then, I've seen very few of these engines actually blow up due to the coolant getting into the oil. The Buick 3800 engine also uses a balance shaft. Very nice, smooth, reliable engine (for the most part). Any 90 degree v-6 engine has to have a balance shaft to be smooth. Ian One-Shot Scot wrote: > The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact, > it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the > 4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy. <<Well, if nothing else, you are certainly "un-informed" about the design of the 4.3 Vortec engine. They have had balance shafts for years now and are a good running, and smooth running engines.>> I certainly didn't mean to imply that GM made no attempt to balance the 4.3 V-6 engine. However, in spite of GMs best efforts to balance the 1990-1995 versions of this engine, it still had a pronounced 1200 RPM shake, as well as a more moderate shake at 500 RPM. I used to watch the floor-mounted manual transmission shifter shake and shake when the truck was in neutral. > One-Shot Scot wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > floor-mounted manual transmission shifter shake and shake when the truck > was in neutral. That might be the case in your situation but personally I think you just got a bunch of bad engines if that is even possible because I have the 1995 version of this very engine it has a bunch of miles on it (160k to be exact) and it shows none of the symptoms you have described. Have had very little trouble with the truck itself at all and none with the engine. Justin > > I certainly didn't mean to imply that GM made no attempt to balance > > the 4.3 V-6 engine. However, in spite of GMs best efforts to balance > > the 1990-1995 versions of this engine, it still had a pronounced 1200 > > RPM shake, as well as a more moderate shake at 500 RPM. I used > > to watch the floor-mounted manual transmission shifter shake and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on it (160k to be exact) and it shows none of the symptoms you have > > described. Have had very little trouble with the truck itself at all and > none with the engine. > > Justin <<That might be the case in your situation but personally I think you just got a bunch of bad engines if that is even possible because I have the 1995 version of this very engine it has a bunch of miles on it (160k to be exact) and it shows none of the symptoms you have described. Have had very little trouble with the truck itself at all and none with the engine. Justin>> I have been looking for the history of the 4.3L Vortec V-6 and their inherent vibrations. So far, I have turned up the following on an S-series page: 1988 Common: The 4.3l v6 engine was introduced. 1993 Common: The 4.3l v6 engine received an internal balance shaft to reduce vibration. My original 4.3L Vortec V-6 was produced in 1990 and my two Goodwrench replacement engines were put in the truck in early 1996. My guess is that both of my rebuilt 4.3L Vortec V-6 engines were pre-1993 models because it is very unlikely that any later models would have needed to be rebuilt. Therefore, my problems with the 1200 RPM shake were probably inherent in all three engines. http://www.mys10.com/downloads/s10_history.asp Here is some information on GM's Vortec 4200 inline 6-cylinder engine: "Sutter (Tom Sutter, Assistant Chief Engineer for GM's new Vortec 4200 Inline 6-cylinder engine) described the inherent smoothness of an inline 6-cylinder design. It has both primary and secondary balance. Primary balance is when the crankshaft counterweights offset the weight of the piston and rod. Secondary balance is when the movement of one piston balances the movement of another. V6's have a secondary imbalance that causes engine vibration. Adding a counter balance shaft can reduce this imbalance, but that adds weight and complexity. The inline design was a good choice. The new Vortec 4200 engine runs smoothly, quietly, and quickly all the way to its 6200-rpm redline." http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/at_010424.htm > > One-Shot Scot wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > <<Well, if nothing else, you are certainly "un-informed" about the > > design of the 4.3 Vortec engine. They have had balance shafts for years My 4.3L is in a '92 S10 extended cab and has 187,000 miles on it. The distributor was replaced and that's it! Uses no oil and runs fine. I'd buy another one tomorrow...in fact, if I get the money I'm going to get another S10 and hopefully with a 4.3L. Maybe it's the oil he uses.  SignatureDrum- I have a 95 astro van awd (with the 4.3 V6 vortec 190HP). Bought it used 2 years ago with about 220,000km on it. It ran great. Took it to smog and passes with flying colours. Today it still runs great. Smooth, quiet, no complaints with the engine whatsoever. Excellent power from stop (I was actually quite impressed how snappy it is). No oil burning, no smoke, no ticking, no drips. The mileage isn't the greatest at about 20mpg (canadian) but it was cheap and I needed the room (8 people). I know the RWD vans get better mileage. I have driven it about 60,000km. My vote gives a yeah to GM for the 'turn the key and it goes' worry free driving on this one (and on my 2.8L with 300,000km and on my 2.2L with 325,000km) I have own imports and had problems with burning oil at much less mileage and connectors corroding out. > It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's > poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 > story to tell. > ticking, no drips. The mileage isn't the greatest at about 20mpg (canadian) Huh? Is a mile in Canada a different distance than a mile in the US? Karl Perry >> ticking, no drips. The mileage isn't the greatest at about 20mpg >(canadian) > >Huh? Is a mile in Canada a different distance than a mile in the US? > >Karl Perry No, but the Canadians would use an Imperial Gallon as opposed to a US Gallon... Its bigger, like most things here. Signaturehank 2004 Chev Z71 > > >> ticking, no drips. The mileage isn't the greatest at about 20mpg [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, but the Canadians would use an Imperial Gallon as opposed to a US > Gallon... > With the exception of the GM passenger car diesels, I > feel that the 4.3L Vortec V-6 is possibly the biggest lemon that any > vehicle manufacturer has ever palmed off its unsuspecting customers. <<I have a 95 astro van awd (with the 4.3 V6 vortec 190HP). Bought it used 2 years ago with about 220,000km on it. It ran great. Took it to smog and passes with flying colours. Today it still runs great. Smooth, quiet, no complaints with the engine whatsoever. Excellent power from stop (I was actually quite impressed how snappy it is). No oil burning, no smoke, no ticking, no drips. The mileage isn't the greatest at about 20mpg (canadian) but it was cheap and I needed the room (8 people). I know the RWD vans get better mileage. I have driven it about 60,000km. My vote gives a yeah to GM for the 'turn the key and it goes' worry free driving on this one (and on my 2.8L with 300,000km and on my 2.2L with 325,000km) I have own imports and had problems with burning oil at much less mileage and connectors corroding out.>> Does it have a smog pump? I have looked under the hoods of a couple of mid-90s 4.3 V-6 California S-10 pickups and they did not have smog pumps. There was a bracket for connecting a smog pump, but the pump was not there. The owners said that they did not remove the smog pump. I always wondered why my full size 1990 C1500 pick up needed a smog pump with its 4.3 V-6 and the S-10s apparently did not. Maybe the Astor Vans were also able to pass smog without a pump. >I have a 95 astro van awd (with the 4.3 V6 vortec 190HP). Bought it used 2 >years ago with about 220,000km on it. It ran great. Took it to smog and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I have own imports and had problems with burning oil at much less mileage >and connectors corroding out. I have a 92 GMC Safari. All wheel drive, extended. With a 4.3. It has around 145000 mile on it. Some things in the van needed replaced over time. New fuel system, redone air conditioner. Front and back units. Some gaskets. On the back Dutch doors. The only engine parts that needed d replacement were the alternator, and a knock sensor. It runs great!! I like the engine. I also have a 91 S-10 with a 2.8, with 197000 miles. <snip> I've got a '97 Astro AWD currently with 116,000 miles. We bought it two years ago with 70,000 miles. It has the Vortec 4.3L V-6, and I bought the van specifically BECAUSE of that, because of its reputation. We have had zero problems with the engine. We have had problems with other components on the van, but the engine is fantastic. I bought the Astro because it is the only minivan with enough balls to tow a horse trailer, and it has done well at that. Before we bought ours, my parents had an '86 with the 4.3L (not sure it's a Vortec at that age) that they put 175,000 miles on. It was still going strong when their tow hitch parted while they were towing it behind their motor home - but that's another story. They bought a GMC Safari again with the 4.3L to replace the '86, and put something like 100,000 miles on that one. My sister and b-i-l have had two Astros both with the 4.3L, and have had zero problems. I have numerous other friends who have had this engine in their vehicles, and have never had a complaint. I wonder if Scot has been using the vehicle beyond its design spec. Karl Perry Great, confirms my experience as well. I think the 4.3 and the 3.8 (a car engine) are two of the best engines ever built, and they both are all iron, 90 degree V6's. I think some of the first 4.3 were rough runners (dependable, but a little rough running), but they are torquey, efficient, dependable engines. bonehead ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > That he and several others have had good luck with Vortec 4.3L V-6. And.... > I wonder if Scot has been using the vehicle beyond its design spec. No. I always drove the truck like a little old lady on her way to a church Bingo game. The truck never pulled a trailer and it never carried a load in its bed exceeding 800 pounds. I beg to differ! Try a 4.3 in the S-series trucks, it is NOT underpowered by ANY means. I'm on my second 4.3L engine, but it's also in my second S-series truck. My first truck had 115,000 miles on it when I traded it, and I got rid of it for reasons other than the engine. In the time I had that truck only 4 repairs were made to the engine, oil filter adapter leaked, the intake manifold agskets leaked, the CPI unit leaked and the EGR failed. The EGR was covered by GM, at 60,000 miles. The rest was covered by me. That engine didn't burn or leak ONE drop of oil, didn't rattle, ping, knock or even run rough. Oh yeah, it was a 94 W engine. I got rid of the truck because the rest of it was starting to fall apart. I just had regular oil changes done and replaced the spark plugs every 15,000-20,000 miles. My 2000 S-10 also has the 4.3L engine in it. Also has no ping, knock, oil leaks and doesn't burn any oil and I can hardly tell it's running except for looking at the tach, but it's only got 67,000 on it. I bought a second truck with the same engine, what's that tell ya? FYI, the injector on my first truck didn't fail until 100,000 miles or so. Imagine how many times it's fired by then, and how much fuel has passed through the regulator. You'd be tired of working also if you'd performed the same function that much. >It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's >poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] >would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 >story to tell. > It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's > poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 > story to tell. Sorry to hear of all your troubles. All I can say is that I have a 1991 Astro Van, 4-sp a/t, AWD that has the 4.3. I currently have 214k miles on it and it still runs great. Towed a 19' Wellcraft boat from No. Va. to Myrtle Beach S.C. three years in a row, no problem. All I've done is keep the oil clean and same for the trans, diff's and xfer case, changed the air filter every once in awhile, she's good to go. It's starting to show it's age now, but mechanically it's fine. I drove a 91 Chevrolet W/T 4x4 Long Bed with the 4.3 for nearly eight years with absolutely NO problems. Hell, I don't even recall any shaking and this truck got the pi$$ driven out of it, on AND off road ! Mileage wasnt bad, about 16 around town and 18-20 on the hiway depending on my driving habits. You had a lemon. It happens to every manufacturer in one way or another. I have a brother with a 1999 Toyota Tundra 4x4 V8 and he has had mucho problems with it. So much so that he is currently in arbitration for a replacement truck. Flame all you want, the 4.3 in my opinion was a good motor. My truck took everything I dished out and came back hungry for more.... _bent > It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's > poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 > story to tell. all I have to say to your post is the following Wifes 1992 S-10 blazer 4.3 auto= 185k miles and it runs GREAT My 1991 S-10 blazer 4.3 auto = 235k miles and it runs GREAT > It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's > poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 > story to tell. Hi! > It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's > poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > am offering my negative experience and negative opinions of the 4.3 > Vortec V-6, but I would welcome any feedback. I've never heard of anyone saying the 4.3 was a bad motor. In fact, I have two of them and both have been great. One is in a full size truck and with patience it does just fine there. The one in the fullsize just crossed 100,000 miles and shows no signs of stopping. Not that I'd expect it to at that relatively low mileage. > The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is often referred to as a "Baby 350", when in fact, > it is nothing more than a bastard child. Two cylinders were cut off of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > V-6, but it has 33% more cylinders. As a result, the operation of the > 4.8L V-8 is smooth and quiet, while the 4.3L V-6 is rough and noisy. I don't agree with you here. I wouldn't call the 4.3 a "silky smooth" motor, but both of mine are plenty quiet and the one in my '03 S-10 is a darned sight quieter and smoother than what they put in the Colorados and Canyons. What moderate amount of vibration is present at idle goes away at higher speeds...pretty much anything above standing and idling. Again more than I can say for the Colorados and Canyons. > My 4.3 was mechanically-noisy, especially so after a cold start, when > the engine would race uncontrollably at a high idle until it warmed up. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > by pressing down on the gas pedal or turn off the AC when stopped in > traffic. The dealer was never able to fix this problem. Sounds like your truck had other problems. A friend of mine has a similar GMC and it doesn't have this trouble at all. Yes, it is a 4.3 paired with a 5 speed. > My overall feeling is that the 4.3 Vortec V-6 is a piece of crap. I > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 > story to tell. It really sounds like you got burned. I think most on this group would join me in saying that the 4.3 is a good engine, if underpowered in the full size truck department. But I'm not speaking for anyone else, nor am I trying to. William The Guesser I had an 1989 4.3L on my C1500 extended cab. I had no engine problems other than normal maintenance through 190K miles. I have no complaints with its performance, even when haulin 8 old railroad ties. I traded it in on a 1995 S-10 in 2000 for a 1995 S-10 4X$ with 50K on itand another 4.3L. It has also performed well with no problems through 120K. Hoping to get another 5 years out of it. > It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's > poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 > story to tell. > It always bothers me to see the post of yet another victim of GM's > poorly designed 4.3 Vortec V-6. (See the post entitled "99066F: Is this [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 > story to tell. That's funny, I just finished working on an 87' Astro with 332,000 miles on it (4.3L/TH700R4), ALL original, and it purrs like a damn kitten, has great compression on all cylinders, 50 psi of oil pressure and is quite smooth. My wife's 98' Sonoma with a 4.3 is quite smooth and powerful as well. Maybe the problem with your 4.3's wasn't the engine but was the hands that were wrenching it. Doc > > My overall feeling is that the 4.3 Vortec V-6 is a piece of crap. I > > would be interested in hearing from anyone who has a 4.3 Vortec V-6 > > story to tell. <<That's funny, I just finished working on an 87' Astro with 332,000 miles on it (4.3L/TH700R4), ALL original, and it purrs like a damn kitten, has great compression on all cylinders, 50 psi of oil pressure and is quite smooth.>> <<My wife's 98' Sonoma with a 4.3 is quite smooth and powerful as well.>> <<Maybe the problem with your 4.3's wasn't the engine but was the hands that were wrenching it. Doc>> I can't argue with your success. Obviously, not all 4.3L Vortex V-6 engines are bad. But take a look at what this guy has to say: GM 4.3 Liter Vortec - I am so disappointed with the quality of this engine I will never buy another General Motors Product again GM 4.3 Liter Vortec Is a piece of JUNK! I am a 15 year ASC, and state of Michigan Master tech. I have been teaching dealer tech's for the last 8 of those 10 years. I have been driving S Series Pick ups's and Blazers sense I received my drivers license back in 1983. I recently bought my first non TBI or carburetor equipped 4.3 equipped vehicle. It is a 2003 Chevy S-10 4 door pickup. You know, the latest, greatest Vin W Vortec pushrod engine. I am so disappointed with the quality of this engine I will never buy another General Motors Product again. Far less because of the inherent design flaws right out of the box that have been able to stay with a design that is near 10 years, but because of how stupid General Motors thinks it's costumers really are! My engine has the same problems that 80% of V6 and V8 Vortec engines have. Its noisy and idles terribly! GM has been promising a fix for years with no resolution. Carboned pistons causing clacking, improperly metered lifters are noisy and to top it all off, a balance shaft torsion problem that completes the engine noise cycle and vibration throughout ALL operating ranges and engine speeds and conditions. With as many millions of these ticking time bombs on the road, with no resolution in sight, GM just shrugs its shoulders and says: "Hey, its a pushrod motor, its supposed to be noisy." $27,000 for a vehicle with an engine that sounds like it has 150,000 miles on it at 15,000 miles and on. I guess they think that them telling us Vortec owners that "it poses no longevity or performance issue" should appease our sense of concern. Problem is IT DOESN'T! Of 5 dealerships, none could give me the time of day, and GM costumer service? Lets just say, banging my head against the wall would have been a more productive use of my time. I pulled the motor out of my NEW TRUCK myself and found: 6 of 12 lifters defective. Improper valve preload on all 6 resulting in a noisy valve train. Checked bleed down rate of all lifters, none of which met GM's own Minimum Bleed down rate specification for this application. 8 valve guides with at least .005" of movement. 7 valve springs out of square and ALL 12 with less than 50 lbs of installed seat pressure. Valve stem heights in variance of over .020" on a non adjustable valve train. .023" back lash on the balance shaft gears. OH MY GOD! No wonder it's so noisy! After trying to match 16 sets of new shafts and gears, best I could do was .008" and had to lap them in as well. Lucky for me ONE local GM dealer let me strip old gears and shafts from old warranty engines. They had exploded carcasses on hand. Where did those all come from? Left bank of the engine had a minimum of .006" piston to wall clearance and 2 collapsed piston skirts, right bank had 1 collapsed skirt with .005" on one cylinder. THATS 3 collapsed piston skirts total in a 6 cylinder engine. If I didn't know it was an almost new engine, I'd swear it had at least 100,000 miles on it! After an investment of $675.00 and a week and a half with the engine on a stand, my engine sounds like it should after 16,000 miles. Its QUIET! Question is, why couldn't GM do this in production? How many years have they been having this problem? For as long as a balance shaft has been inside the Vortec! What is the moral of the story? GM has no regard for costumer care, or satisfaction. GM has no regard for the faithful costumer and Joe lunchpail who is paying a note on a truck that sounds like a piece of junk! I just wanted to share my engine autopsy with your readers. Any one want to join me in a class action law suit? Victor G Dearborn Michigan (home of Henry Ford and the Mustang) http://www.complaints.com/directory/2004/may/16/17.htm > I can't argue with your success. Obviously, not all 4.3L Vortex V-6 > engines are bad. But take a look at what this guy has to say: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am a 15 year ASC, and state of Michigan Master tech. I have been > teaching dealer tech's for the last 8 of those 10 years. This guy is crazy. He's taking his "one motor" experience and thinks that he can condemn the entire line of 4.3 engines. I actually have worked on these engines non-stop since their inception. Can he say that? I will admit that the first few years of 4.3's were pretty lousy engines. But we literally do "nothing" in terms of major mechanical work to these engines. As I said before, the intake manifold gaskets are a problem. Engine oil cooler lines are a problem too, but I don't consider this part of the engines mechanical design. The only other problem that I've encountered (and very rarely) is a rattling noise that occurs around 2100 rpm. There is a bulletin out on this, and the fix is to install a newly designed timing chain tensioner assembly. The noise is actually coming from the balance shaft gear and the chain tensioner addresses this problem. But we rarely replace engines, or do head work or bottom end work. And even though I work at a dealership, we see many trucks that are well beyond warranty mileage. Ian One-Shot Scot wrote: > I can't argue with your success. Obviously, not all 4.3L Vortex V-6 > engines are bad. But take a look at what this guy has to say: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am a 15 year ASC, and state of Michigan Master tech. I have been > teaching dealer tech's for the last 8 of those 10 years. <<This guy is crazy. He's taking his "one motor" experience and thinks that he can condemn the entire line of 4.3 engines. I actually have worked on these engines non-stop since their inception. Can he say that? I will admit that the first few years of 4.3's were pretty lousy engines. But we literally do "nothing" in terms of major mechanical work to these engines. As I said before, the intake manifold gaskets are a problem. Engine oil cooler lines are a problem too, but I don't consider this part of the engines mechanical design. The only other problem that I've encountered (and very rarely) is a rattling noise that occurs around 2100 rpm. There is a bulletin out on this, and the fix is to install a newly designed timing chain tensioner assembly. The noise is actually coming from the balance shaft gear and the chain tensioner addresses this problem. But we rarely replace engines, or do head work or bottom end work. And even though I work at a dealership, we see many trucks that are well beyond warranty mileage. Ian>> BOTTOM LINE: "I will admit that the first few years of 4.3's were pretty lousy engines." Thank you! > BOTTOM LINE: > > "I will admit that the first few years of 4.3's were pretty lousy > engines." > > Thank you! See...this is where folks like you end up being real a.sholes when it comes to having a reasonable conversation. You condemn the early 4.3's...good for you, so you got screwed a number of years back. That's not the case anymore, as numerous people on these newsgroups can attest to. Then, in order to "make your case" you quote some guy who is pissed off about his "late model" 4.3. I tell you that the late model (ever since they had balance shafts) 4.3's have been a model engine. All you can do is pull out the statement that "early" 4.3's had their problems. That was a long time ago, and most engines have their share of problems early in their development cycle. Too bad....I guess you were stupid enough to be GM's guinea pig when the 4.3 was first brought out. And now, you've decided that you will be their guinea pig by buying a 4.8 engine. Wait till the piston knock starts happening...man, will you be whining about it! Go buy a Ford or Dodge if it will make you happier. Ian One-Shot Scot wrote: > BOTTOM LINE: > > "I will admit that the first few years of 4.3's were pretty lousy > engines." > > Thank you! <<See...this is where folks like you end up being real a.sholes when it comes to having a reasonable conversation. You condemn the early 4.3's...good for you, so you got screwed a number of years back. That's not the case anymore, as numerous people on these newsgroups can attest to. Then, in order to "make your case" you quote some guy who is pissed off about his "late model" 4.3. I tell you that the late model (ever since they had balance shafts) 4.3's have been a model engine. All you can do is pull out the statement that "early" 4.3's had their problems. That was a long time ago, and most engines have their share of problems early in their development cycle.>> <<Too bad....I guess you were stupid enough to be GM's guinea pig when the 4.3 was first brought out. And now, you've decided that you will be their guinea pig by buying a 4.8 engine. Wait till the piston knock starts happening...man, will you be whining about it! Go buy a Ford or Dodge if it will make you happier. Ian>> So, are you for or against General Motors? Did I get screwed twice? Once when I bought my 1990 4.3L V-6 and again when I bought my 2004 4.8L V-8? My experience with early, bad 4.3L V-6 engines wasn't "a long time ago", because I drove my 1990 Scottsdale until the end of April 2004. When I made my original post, I asked for opinions. So far, I have found a few people who agree that the early 4.3L V-6 engines weren't all that great. But anyone reading the replies to my post can plainly see that my bad experience is the exception and that the vast majority of 4.3L V-6 owners are very happy with this engine. As for the guy that I quoted, I don't think that he ever got his class action law suit off the ground. And even though I had lots of problems with my 1990 Scottsdale, I never said: "GM 4.3 Liter Vortec - I am so disappointed with the quality of this engine I will never buy another General Motors Product again." I was able to see that GM has made tremendous improvements in its new trucks and I bought another one. It is my understanding that the 4.3L V-6 made its debut in 1988, so my 1990 Scottsdale would have been made during this engine's 3rd year of production. It wasn't until 1993 that the 4.3L V6 engine received an internal balance shaft to reduce vibration, as well as some other improvements. The 4.8L V-8 appears to have made its debut in 1999, so my 2004 Silverado would have been made during this engine's 6th year of production. Hopefully, I waited long enough for GM to get the bugs out of this engine. http://www.mys10.com/downloads/s10_history.asp http://www.hpsalvage.com/lt1.htm <snip> >My experience with early, bad 4.3L V-6 engines wasn't "a long time ago", >because I drove my 1990 Scottsdale until the end of April 2004. When I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >experience is the exception and that the vast majority of 4.3L V-6 >owners are very happy with this engine. I had a `90 version that went through the valve guides & seals right quick. Damn thing looked like a skeeter fogging machine when it was first started up.. Didn't prevent me from buying an `02 Astro & `02 S-10 with the 4.3 engine in both of em. I have 50K on the S-10 & 21K on the Astro. No engine problems in either one. SignatureWind In my hair Shifting and drifting Mechanical music Adrenaline surge... Well-weathered leather, Hot metal and oil, The scented country air. Sunlight on chrome, The blur of the landscape, Every nerve aware. --ZombyWoof-- On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:16:59 -0700, "One-Shot Scot" <SonOf@Bitch.com> wrote something wonderfully witty: <snip> >My experience with early, bad 4.3L V-6 engines wasn't "a long time ago", >because I drove my 1990 Scottsdale until the end of April 2004. When I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >experience is the exception and that the vast majority of 4.3L V-6 >owners are very happy with this engine. <<I had a `90 version that went through the valve guides & seals right quick. Damn thing looked like a skeeter fogging machine when it was first started up.. Didn't prevent me from buying an `02 Astro & `02 S-10 with the 4.3 engine in both of em. I have 50K on the S-10 & 21K on the Astro. No engine problems in either one.>> Yeah, that 1988-1993 4.3L V-6 engine was no prize and I was thoroughly disgusted with the three of them that I suffered with. >It is my understanding that the 4.3L V-6 made its debut in 1988, so my >1990 Scottsdale would have been made during this engine's 3rd year of >production. It wasn't until 1993 that the 4.3L V6 engine received an >internal balance shaft to reduce vibration, as well as some other >improvements. GM was using the 4.3L in their G-bodies a couple of years prior. Imagine that blender-motor in a passenger car. ick. RM > So, are you for or against General Motors? Did I get screwed twice? > Once when I bought my 1990 4.3L V-6 and again when I bought my 2004 > 4.8L V-8? I'm neither for or against GM. I am simply a technician who happens to work in a GM dealership, and I like to come by the newsgroups and contribute what I can. Your 4.8 v-8 is a good engine, but I have little doubt that when the piston slap starts occurring, or you have a right cylinder head gasket split, or the water pump gaskets go south, that you will be upset that you got a "lemon". > The 4.8L V-8 appears to have made its debut in 1999, so my 2004 > Silverado would have been made during this engine's 6th year of > production. Hopefully, I waited long enough for GM to get the bugs out > of this engine. There haven't been that many bugs to begin with. GM has made what appears to be a great engine. The same engine is running in light trucks, Corvettes, the CTS, Trailblazers...etc. It comes in all aluminium configurations, cast iron block, cast iron heads configurations, and cast iron block, aluminium head configurations. I think it will be around for a while. Ian One-Shot Scot wrote: > So, are you for or against General Motors? Did I get screwed twice? > Once when I bought my 1990 4.3L V-6 and again when I bought my 2004 > 4.8L V-8? <<I'm neither for or against GM. I am simply a technician who happens to work in a GM dealership, and I like to come by the newsgroups and contribute what I can.>> <<Your 4.8 v-8 is a good engine, but I have little doubt that when the piston slap starts occurring, or you have a right cylinder head gasket split, or the water pump gaskets go south, that you will be upset that you got a "lemon".>> Eventually, all engines will wear out, but some of them wear out before they reach 100 thousand miles. That is why I bought the GM 60-month, 100 thousand mile warranty. I hope that this turns out to be a bad investment and that I never need to use it. After keeping my 1990 Scottsdale for 14 years and 219 thousand miles, I decided to never again drive a truck that is out of warranty. I even went so far as to get the GM credit card which gives 5% credit toward the purchase of new General Motors vehicles. This card will theoretically allow me to buy a new truck with a $2000 down payment. My 4.8L V-8 2004 Silverado will never pull a trailer and will never haul a load (including passengers and cargo) heavier than 1000 pounds. This truck will never be lugged down, driven at full throttle or under heavy duty conditions (such as mountainous dirt roads) or used as a taxi or delivery vehicle. This truck will have its oil changed every 3000 miles and it will be serviced according to the manufacturers recommendations. Under these relatively light duty conditions, how long should it take for problems such as piston slap, right cylinder head gasket split, or failure of water pump gaskets to occur? > The 4.8L V-8 appears to have made its debut in 1999, so my 2004 > Silverado would have been made during this engine's 6th year of > production. Hopefully, I waited long enough for GM to get the bugs out > of this engine. <<There haven't been that many bugs to begin with. GM has made what appears to be a great engine. The same engine is running in light trucks, Corvettes, the CTS, Trailblazers...etc. It comes in all aluminium configurations, cast iron block, cast iron heads configurations, and cast iron block, aluminium head configurations. I think it will be around for a while. Ian>> I hope you're right. > My 4.8L V-8 2004 Silverado will never pull a trailer and will never haul > a load (including passengers and cargo) heavier than 1000 pounds. This > truck will never be lugged down, driven at full throttle or under heavy > duty conditions (such as mountainous dirt roads) or used as a taxi or > delivery vehicle. This truck will have its oil changed every 3000 miles > and it will be serviced according to the manufacturers recommendations. Well why the sh.t didn't you buy a Hon-duh Accord or a goddamn Saturn Ion if you're going to drive your truck like a passenger vehicle? Doc Hey Shiden_Kai, I have a 91 4.3 and it rattles at about 2100 rpm. If it wont be too much trouble could you get me the GM part number for the Tensioner that you speak of so I can replace mine and see if that takes care of my rattle Thank you Steve > > I can't argue with your success. Obviously, not all 4.3L Vortex V-6 > > engines are bad. But take a look at what this guy has to say: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ian >Hey Shiden_Kai, I have a 91 4.3 and it rattles at about 2100 rpm. If it >wont be too much trouble could you get me the GM part number for the >Tensioner that you speak of so I can replace mine and see if that takes care >of my rattle >Thank you >Steve Steve, I don't think the tensioner was on the earlier models, Ian can confirm that though... >> > I can't argue with your success. Obviously, not all 4.3L Vortex V-6 >> > engines are bad. But take a look at what this guy has to say: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> Ian > Steve, I don't think the tensioner was on the earlier models, Ian can > confirm that though... You are right, Mike. It's only for the 96 models and up. Rattle Noise in Engine (Install Timing Tensioner Kit) #03-06-01-024B - (Mar 4, 2004) Rattle Noise In Engine (Install Timing Tensioner Kit) 1996-2003 Chevrolet Astro, Blazer, Express, S-10, Silverado 1996-2003 GMC Jimmy, Safari, Savana, Sierra, Sonoma 1996-2001 Oldsmobile Bravada with 4.3L V6 Engine (VINs W, X -- RPOs L35, LU3) This bulletin is being revised to change warranty information. Please discard Corporate Bulletin Number 03-06-01-024A (Section 06 -- Engine/Propulsion System). Condition Some customers may comment on a rattle-type noise coming from the engine at approximately 1800 to 2200 RPMs. Cause The spark, rattle-type noise may be caused by torsional vibration of the balance shaft. > Condition > Some customers may comment on a rattle-type noise [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The spark, rattle-type noise may be caused by torsional > vibration of the balance shaft. Boy howdy. I've been chasing that noise since immediately after having the intake manifold resealed. It occurred on the first cold start thereafter and has continued since. Up until just recently, it would present itself after a couple blocks of light throttle and persist unless taken to highway speeds for about 4 miles. Then it'd fade until the next cold start. Seems to be amplifying now. Only occurs when the truck ('95 1500, 2WD, 4.3L V-6, 173k, bought new and otherwise pristine) is in gear and moving. Not in neutral, can't load it on the brake, don't get it with the rear wheels off the ground and spinning at any speed / in any gear. Ergo -> impossible to isolate. Sounds almost like a lifter noise, but only happens in gear and moving. The dealer that did the manifold reseal shrugs shoulders. Other dealer troubleshoots, yanks $400, then shrugs shoulders. The thing is making me nuts. It's like a water torture. Clack-clack-clack. Arrrrggggh. You've given hope. Thanks. Would you know of any further reading, troubleshooting steps or spirit dance I could perform to confirm the diagnosis? Milt > You've given hope. Thanks. Would you know of any further reading, > troubleshooting steps or spirit dance I could perform to confirm the > diagnosis? This is hard noise to figure out. What I can tell you is that it sounds almost exactly like a catalytic convertor that is coming apart inside. Kinda that tinny exhaust rattle. Guys that have heard a noisy cat will know what I mean. Then, when you get under the vehicle and listen with a stethoscope, you can hear the noise coming from the oil pan area of the engine. It's a rare condition, I think we've only run into a couple of them in the last 3 years. Ian >> You've given hope. Thanks. Would you know of any further reading, >> troubleshooting steps or spirit dance I could perform to confirm the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Ian I think mine has the timing chain tensioner rattle. I replaced the belt tensioner thinking that was the problem. It was shaking like crazy with the engine running, so I figured that was it. Still have the rattle. This is not an issue that can be catostrophic to the engine if not repaired, is it? Hoping not, I don't have the money to drop on a repair like that. > I think mine has the timing chain tensioner rattle. I replaced the > belt tensioner thinking that was the problem. It was shaking like > crazy with the engine running, so I figured that was it. Still have > the rattle. This is not an issue that can be catastrophic to the > engine if not repaired, is it? Hoping not, I don't have the money to > drop on a repair like that. Not at all. It's simply annoying. All you are hearing is backlash between the two gears (cam and balance shaft). The tensioner kit simply keeps the cam chain from flopping around and exaggerating the gear backlash noise. Ian > This is hard noise to figure out. What I can tell you is that > it sounds almost exactly like a catalytic convertor that is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > engine. It's a rare condition, I think we've only run into > a couple of them in the last 3 years. Thanks kindly for the input. This noise sounds 'xactly like a lifter gone bad ... which I'd almost prefer. T'ain't, tho. No noise at any rpm unless it's rolling down the road and in gear. Varies with engine speed, tho I can't tell if it's valve-train speed or crank speed. My tachometer ears have gone south in my old age. Most intense in the 1700 - 2200 rpm range under light throttle. It Got a wild hair today and changed the oil to a wildly different blend and viscosity, looking for some change, any change. It did change the volume some, and now minimizes after being on the road a bit, as it did originally. Bueno. Will build on that. Had an 82 or so Mustang, got gravel between the ctalytic converter and the rock shield. Also seen the rock shields loose. >>This is hard noise to figure out. What I can tell you is that >>it sounds almost exactly like a catalytic convertor that is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > some, and now minimizes after being on the road a bit, as it did originally. > Bueno. Will build on that. Hey..got this noise in my 1996 V-6 too. It does exactly what you describe, when I am not paying attention and put the 87 octane in. My truck thrives on the 89 octane, and the noise magically goes away with better gas in it...103K miles and chugging towards either a trade in or a V-8 conversion... > > Condition > > Some customers may comment on a rattle-type noise [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Milt > Hey..got this noise in my 1996 V-6 too. It does exactly what you describe, > when I am not paying attention and put the 87 octane in. My truck thrives > on the 89 octane, and the noise magically goes away with better gas in > it...103K miles and chugging towards either a trade in or a V-8 > conversion... If it goes away with the 89 octane you're hearing spark knock which has nothing to do with the timing chain fix Ian mentioned above in this string. I'd suggest having a closer look-see at the EGR, and maybe a good top-end cleaner as well. Doc > > > Condition > > > Some customers may comment on a rattle-type noise [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > > Milt I know that....I went back and reread the string and noticed that I was only looking at the dregs of the message. I figured that had been talked about previously after I hastily posted my message... > > Hey..got this noise in my 1996 V-6 too. It does exactly what you > describe, [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > > > > > Milt I know this thread is old but I would like to say first that every manufacturer and every model has a lemon out there somewhere. Second That I have had countless 4.3L chevy's and I have never had a problem. Some were throttle body's and others where vortecs. Another thing the carb and throttle body 4.3 were not vortecs. The first vortec had the alluminum intake with the spider injector and then came the current model. I also have only known one person to have ever blown a 4.3L up, and that was the result of a bad wrist pin. Which resulted in the rod seperating from the piston then coming up and shoving the piston through the side of the block. Every one I know who has had one loves that engine. My dad had one in his 92 full size chevy with 5 speed for 10 years in the nevada dessert before the oil pump failed, and yet the motor was still fine after he changed it. My mom had a 92 S10 blazer 4X4 with the 4.3L and never had to do anything to the motor or trans except oil changes and 1 tune up. I currently own a 94 Blazer with the Vortec 4.3L and it runs great. My dad now has an 06 full size chevy with the 4.3L and not one problem and still loves that engine. My mom now owns a 2000 S10 Blazer with the Vortec 4.3L and the motor is great. The only problems I have ever encountered with these vehicles is fuel pumps and the spider injector for the first vortec. With the exception of the oil pump in my dads 92. There are only three other engines with outstanding quality that I would list with or above the 4.3L and that list would be- The 3.8L from GM, The small block chevy, and the genIII and genIV small block. Never will I put up with some one talking smack about the 4.3L My only thing is why GM never put it in the camaro and firebirds instead of the weak 2.8L and 3.1L. And why gm didn't use it for more of a performance engine like with the turbo version for the GMC Syclone and Typhoon. Hi! Hey One-Shot, give these a listen: http://greyghost.dyndns.org/43v6/index.html They're quick and dirty and a little bassy but that's how my laptop heard it...sounds pretty good, huh? That one's got about 14,900 miles on it so far. My dad has loud exhaust on his truck, so there's really not much you can hear of the motor *itself*. I'm rather surprised at how you've kept on "knocking" the 4.3 especially after most of this group has told you how *good* the vast majority are. It's almost reaching into the troll zone, bud. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy a truck with it and you didn't. Enough said, really. For anyone who else who might know or give my samples a listen...what's that soft whine the 4.3 makes? Any truck I've ever seen with it or a 350 seems to do it... I'm not worried about it, but what makes that sound? William The Guesser (wondering why he doesn't have a life...) > Hi! > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > William The Guesser (wondering why he doesn't have a life...) William, It's the serpentine belt assembley just winding up. Damn dude, now I wanna run out and take some sound clips of my girl! Neighbors'd be pissed though if I started revving her @ 11:30 pm. Maybe tomorrow. Doc Hi! > It's the serpentine belt assembley just winding up. Thanks for the information, as always. > Damn dude, now I wanna run out and take some sound clips of my girl! Go and do it! Life's too short to put things you want to do off... > Neighbors'd be pissed though if I started revving her @ 11:30 pm. Maybe > tomorrow. I have very forgiving neighbors (with their own vehicle collections, too). That's probably the only reason why I get away with having so many vehicles on my property... :-) My brother, dad and myself all smoked out the neighborhood one night around 11 while fiddling with an old Buick and injector cleaner. Not only did we make a LOT of smoke, but the car had virtually no muffler left. William The Guesser Well first off toyota's are tampons, they are disposable. you can buy 4 toyota's for the price of a "nice" full size. second i had a 4.3l vortec. they are junk. one side ran dry of oil just like scott's and she went kaboom. now i am trying to put a 5.7l v8 in my 94 silverado z71. i might just throw another 4.3 in and sell it so i can by a 99 with a 5.3l v8. i favor the 5.3 over the 5.7 and the 4.8 more power and better response in my experience. i have raced a stock height truck with a 383 stroker motor. and beat the guy with a 99 2500 silverado with the 5.3l and dual stainless exhaust. no chips and walked all over his a.s. mayve he was a pussy on the throttle though. any comments |
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.