4.3 for a 2.8

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

frametype - 30 Dec 2004 03:50 GMT

Got a 1991 S-10 Blazer, 4.3 liter with 213,000 miles.
Have a chance to sell it and pick up a 1986 S-10 pickup with a 2.8 and
95,000 miles.

I would like to drop that many miles, and a lot of wear and tear for this
one owner truck driven by an elderly man that I went to church with.

BUT, is the 2.8 to be shunned?
I have gotten some advice to that effect, but wondered what comments may be
given here.

Thanks.

Reply to this Message

Big Chris - 30 Dec 2004 04:32 GMT

The 2.8L is a gutless wonder, but it'll get you from point A to point B
quite well. My experience with them (one of my college roommates bought a
2.8L 87 and I had/have a 4.3L 88) is that they are underpowered. Going down
the road, it shifts in and out of OD quite a bit depending on if you are
going up hill or into a wind. I have heard they are tough on transmissions
because of this. I wouldn't want to tow much with them. For running around
town though, they are great. Better MPG than the 4.3L.

Big Chris

> Got a 1991 S-10 Blazer, 4.3 liter with 213,000 miles.
> Have a chance to sell it and pick up a 1986 S-10 pickup with a 2.8 and
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Thanks.

Reply to this Message

Holton - 30 Dec 2004 04:56 GMT

If you want get up and go, stay with the 4.3 If you just want wheels the
2.8 is not a bad ride. I had a couple of them that lasted a long time.
The last one was an 87 s-10 4X4 that had 260,000 before the engine finally
gave up. If you pull anything at all, you will not like the 2.8 but the gas
milage is good and they are fairly dependable for A to B transportation.
Just my opinion.

> The 2.8L is a gutless wonder, but it'll get you from point A to point B
> quite well. My experience with them (one of my college roommates bought a
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> >
> > Thanks.

Reply to this Message

Santa - 30 Dec 2004 05:01 GMT

> The 2.8L is a gutless wonder, but it'll get you from point A to point B
> quite well. My experience with them (one of my college roommates bought a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> because of this. I wouldn't want to tow much with them. For running around
> town though, they are great. Better MPG than the 4.3L.

You are Correct.. I Had a 1983 2.8 and the overdrive wud Kick down if I
Ran over an ANT that was on the Freeway!!

And Also the overdrive went Bad Due to all the Shifting on small
Hills.. ( Cost $900.00 to fix it in 1988)
Got rid of that and got a NEW 89 4.3 and I think it is OVERPOWERED ..
even tho mine Has 190,000 miles... it is a 4 X 4 and been pushing Snow
now since 1994 with it.. Auto Trans ,, No Extra coolers .. Business's
like it Because It will go right down the Sidewalk, because it is Narrow

The body is pretty well rusted out tho!!!

> Big Chris
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>
>>Thanks.

Reply to this Message

frametype - 31 Dec 2004 04:44 GMT

I think the 2.8 would be OK for my uses power wise.
The 1991 Blazer was purchased for my son, who is 11. He was 9, and wanted a
4 wheeler. Since they are the leading cause of death in kids here in WV (or
so I have heard) I said no way and got him a truck. He has learned to drive
it around our property quite well.
We also use it as a backup vehicle, and a loaner to friends.

I am more worried about longevity and reliablity. A friend told me that the
'86 model year particularly were known to have problems. I had not heard
that and wanted to get the take from the group here.

Thanks for the input.

> The 2.8L is a gutless wonder, but it'll get you from point A to point B
> quite well. My experience with them (one of my college roommates bought a
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>
>> Thanks.

Reply to this Message