GMC News: GMC Announces The Specs For The 4.3L EcoTec V6

[William Maley]

---

By William Maley

Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

May 7, 2013

GMC has announced the specs on the 4.3L EcoTec V6 that will be installed in the 2014 Sierra. The 4.3L produces 285 horsepower and 305 pound-feet of torque. GMC says the 305 pound-feet of torque is the best in class. Also best in class is the 4.3L V6 tow rating of 7,200 lbs.

The 4.3L V6 goes on sale later this fall with a starting price of $25,085.

Source: General Motors

William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected]or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

Press Release is on Page 2

---

2014 Sierra’s New 4.3L Tops in Standard V-6 Pickup Torque

New EcoTec3 engine continues rich GMC V-6 heritage

2013-05-06

DETROIT – When the all-new 2014 GMC Sierra full-size pickup arrives this summer, its standard 4.3L EcoTec V-6 it will offer the most torque of any standard V-6 in the segment – 305 lb-ft (413 Nm).

Buyers will choose from three new, advanced EcoTec3 engines – a 5.3L available at launch, followed by the 4.3L and 6.2L versions available later this year. All are designed specifically for the high trailering and hauling demands unique to truck buyers.

Torque is the turning force that generates off-the-line acceleration and confident trailering performance. Sierras equipped with the 4.3L EcoTec3 V-6 will have trailering ratings up to 7,200 pounds (3,266 kg) for a regular cab, short bed, four-wheel-drive model – 500 pounds more than the most capable Ford F-150 3.7L and 700 pounds more than a Ram 1500 3.6L. Sierra’s standard V-6 produces an SAE-certified 285 horsepower (212 kW) and is matched with a proven, efficient six-speed automatic transmission. EPA fuel economy estimates will be released later.

Like Sierra’s optional 5.3L and 6.2L EcoTec3 V-8 engines, the new V-6 features three state-of-the-art technologies – direct injection, active fuel management (cylinder deactivation) and continuously variable valve timing – that have been proven and perfected through 6 million hours of computational analysis by engineers studying the combustion process. In all, 10 million CPU hours were spent refining and making the most of the Sierra’s EcoTec3 engines.

“This is technology no other truck maker can match, and we offer it in every EcoTec3 engines, for every customer,” said Jordan Lee, GM Powertrain chief engineer. “It is a standard feature, so our drivers get our best and most sophisticated technology regardless of trim level.”

Although they share only a handful of parts with previous Sierra engines, the new EcoTec3 V-6 builds on experience gained from millions of trucks and billions of real-world customer miles resulting from a half-century of leadership in V-6 engine development. In 1960, GMC debuted the first V-6 pickup truck ever and offered it exclusively through most of the ’60s.

That engine, offered in various displacements starting at 5.0L, was designed with aluminum pistons, improved cooling and a stout crankshaft and bearings designed for unprecedented durability.

“The family of V-6 engines introduced in 1960 was designed to last, and I’ve heard of some owners going more than 450,000 miles on the original engine,” said Donald Meyer, GMC truck historian. “They had really high torque and pulled loads well. GMC engineers know how to build durable, reliable engines that never quit.”

Like the 2014 engine, the 4.3L V-6 introduced as standard equipment for GMC half-ton pickups in 1985 used geometry and engineering from the brand’s proven Small Block V-8. As with today’s V-6, engineers studied the combustion chamber, developing “Vortec” technology that swirled the air and fuel inside the engine to create a more homogenous mix, improving power and efficiency. That engine was the basis for new generations of engines through the 2013 model year.

2014 Sierra models with the 4.3L EcoTec3 V-6 go on sale later this year with a suggested starting price of $25,085, including a destination charge of $995 but excluding tax, title, license and dealer fees.

View full article

[Drew Dowdell]

305 lb-ft at what RPM? If it's like the 3.0 and produces its peak torque at red line, it won't fly.

[William Maley]

305 lb-ft at what RPM? If it's like the 3.0 and produces its peak torque at red line, it won't fly.

Don't see any mention of it in the press release at all.. Coming soon I guess?

[regfootball]

should be a good base engine, as long as they keep it out of the cars, no sweat.

[cletus8269]

pretty spectacular that they wrung another 100hp out of the 4.3's. i havent read too much on them, are these based on the old 4.3's in anyway?

[GMTruckGuy74]

No, cletus. The 4.3L V6 for 2014 is all new and has no relations to the previous 4.3L V6 that's been around since forever.

Surprisingly, no mention of fuel efficiency ratings either, mud.

[William Maley]

No, cletus. The 4.3L V6 for 2014 is all new and has no relations to the previous 4.3L V6 that's been around since forever.

Surprisingly, no mention of fuel efficiency ratings either, mud.

Yeah.. I'm expecting we'll see those numbers come out sometime this or next week since GM is doing the media drives for the Silverado this week.

[Robert Hall]

Interesting...so this is a new pushrod V6.

[Drew Dowdell]

yes

[pow]

Wow, that's impressive torque for a naturally aspirated V6.

[ocnblu]

A fine TRUCK engine. Proud of GM for sticking to what makes a truck... real.

The Colorado/Canyon have their new top engine!

[PurdueGuy]

An excellent engine for the trucks. For comparison, my dad had a 1992 Sierra base with the old 4.3L V6, and from what I can find it was rated for 160hp & 235 lb ft. It wasn't fast, and probably wouldn't have been any good for any real towing, but my dad would regularly get over 20mpg highway, and haul a truck bed FULL of livestock feed sacks. He got 340,000 miles out of it before it gave him enough issues to move on. If this new engine can get some good fuel economy and prove reliable, it'll make for some great base trucks.

[regfootball]

Interesting...so this is a new pushrod V6.

see, you can't expect to get rid of all old GM think

[smk4565]

Sounds like the Vortec V6 is now the Ecotec V6. I wonder how Eco it really is, the Ram gets 25 mpg, and if an automaker got smart and cut the weight and put a 3.0 liter turbo diesel in a pick up they could get 30 mpg highway or close to it. I wonder if this 4.3 L has better NVH characteristics than the Pentastar 3.6 or Ford's 3.7 liter, my guess is no,

[Robert Hall]

Have they done anything to reduce the weight on the new trucks? Or are they still 3 tons?

[balthazar]

The current SIlverado 1500 starts @ 5300 lbs. I strongly agree this is too heavy, my old mid-'90s F-150 RC/LB started around 3900 lbs.

Damn electronic BS- pulling some of that nonsense out would be a good start to slimming down.

[Robert Hall]

The current SIlverado 1500 starts @ 5300 lbs. I strongly agree this is too heavy, my old mid-'90s F-150 RC/LB started around 3900 lbs.

Damn electronic BS- pulling some of that nonsense out would be a good start to slimming down.

I doubt if the electronics weigh very much...

[balthazar]

Really? Well, it's not overall size, it's not an increase in steel, frames aren't that much different, there's more plastics & aluminum (don't the Silvies had AL hoods?), glass is thinner...
...from a Jeep forum, going from a 15" rim/tire to an 18" rim with identical (otherwise) tire size, same brands in both cases, raises weight only 55 lbs total....

...where else besides interior (insulation, sound deadening, consoles, 10 air bags, padded power telescoping sunvisors... & electronics? Electronic throttles, parking brakes, rearview cameras, front proximity warning, cruise, NAV, telemetrics, tire inflation, anti-lock brakes, TC, ESC, etc etc is the weight coming from? It's certainly not primarily from the basic structure.

[pow]

Really? Well, it's not overall size, it's not an increase in steel, frames aren't that much different, there's more plastics & aluminum (don't the Silvies had AL hoods?), glass is thinner...

...from a Jeep forum, going from a 15" rim/tire to an 18" rim with identical (otherwise) tire size, same brands in both cases, raises weight only 55 lbs total....

...where else besides interior (insulation, sound deadening, consoles, 10 air bags, padded power telescoping sunvisors... & electronics? Electronic throttles, parking brakes, rearview cameras, front proximity warning, cruise, NAV, telemetrics, tire inflation, anti-lock brakes, TC, ESC, etc etc is the weight coming from? It's certainly not primarily from the basic structure.

Most of the electronics share the same modules (e.g., ABS, TC, and ESC or parking sensors, cameras, OnStar, and nav) and don't weigh very much. Some even help to save weight, like electronic power steering, which replaces a heavy hydraulic pump.

I would explain the increase in weight, without a corresponding increase in size, through the over-engineering of components like the frame, powertrain, suspension, body, brakes, etc. Each new generation of trucks brings higher towing capacities (as much a function of the chassis as the powertrain) and quicker acceleration. A Silverado 2500HD weighs 1,000 lbs more than a 1500 of the same size. Perhaps the light-duty trucks of today are as capable as the HD trucks of yesteryear.

Another thing is 4WD. It seems like more and more buyers are going for 4WD, and that usually adds 300+ lbs.

Edited May 10, 2013 by pow

[balthazar]

I looked at the weight on the 2500HD : RC/LB 6.0L in 2013 is 5788. You have to jump to the Duramax in the same truck to get to 6469 lbs. - chevy website.

Looks like I had picked the wrong truck (from the extensive portfolio) in my above post; site says the 1500 WT RC/LB 4.3L starts at 4596, not 5300. That is in keeping with pow's list above IMO, accounting for the strengthening since the Ford I referenced at 3900 lbs.... so I will back off of blaming electronics. The trucks aren't as heavy as I initially thought in baseline.

Still, hopefully GM will continue it's newfound 'fitness regimen' and get the needle ticking downward some.

IIRC, my F-150 was rated to tow 4900 lbs., and the chevy site says the same 1500 WT (with 3.23 axle) is good for 4700 lbs. Stronger truck... but the added weight takes away from towing capacity, it seems.

Edited May 10, 2013 by balthazar

[Drew Dowdell]

Sounds like the Vortec V6 is now the Ecotec V6. I wonder how Eco it really is, the Ram gets 25 mpg, and if an automaker got smart and cut the weight and put a 3.0 liter turbo diesel in a pick up they could get 30 mpg highway or close to it. I wonder if this 4.3 L has better NVH characteristics than the Pentastar 3.6 or Ford's 3.7 liter, my guess is no,

The 4.3 has balance shafts... it's probably about equal.

[Drew Dowdell]

IIRC, my F-150 was rated to tow 4900 lbs., and the chevy site says the same 1500 WT (with 3.23 axle) is good for 4700 lbs. Stronger truck... but the added weight takes away from towing capacity, it seems.

The limitation you're seeing is purely power train related and nothing to do with the frame or weight. Simply opt up to the 5.3 V8 in the W/T (which also puts you into the 6-speed rather than 4-speed auto) with a 3.08 rear end and you can have 7400lbs. trailering or 9100lbs. with 3.42 rear end.

[Daryl Z71]

IIRC, my F-150 was rated to tow 4900 lbs., and the chevy site says the same 1500 WT (with 3.23 axle) is good for 4700 lbs. Stronger truck... but the added weight takes away from towing capacity, it seems.

The limitation you're seeing is purely power train related and nothing to do with the frame or weight. Simply opt up to the 5.3 V8 in the W/T (which also puts you into the 6-speed rather than 4-speed auto) with a 3.08 rear end and you can have 7400lbs. trailering or 9100lbs. with 3.42 rear end.

Or 10,400 with the 6.2 and 3.73's

Edited May 12, 2013 by Daryl Z71

[balthazar]

Of course; I was looking more at '2 apples' (base trucks with base engines).

[Drew Dowdell]

You had the 5 liter Inline 6, no? It's basically a tractor engine and can tow anything.... the weak spot is the rear diff.... which my dad blows up every once in a while.

[balthazar]

Ya: 300, or 4.9L. TRQ was 265- not bad. Never had an issue with the rear (over 146K). 3.08 gears.

All the domestic trucks are underrated WRT capacity, anyway.

[Drew Dowdell]

Dad is over 280k on his '95 Just toasted the first fuel pump on the front gas tank.... pretty much trouble free otherwise. I don't know which gears he has on his.. .he calls them "highway gears"

[balthazar]

I pretty much stopped driving mine around '07, and it's been gone since '09.

I have a brand new in-tank pump if he needs one.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think it may have been ordered already, but if not, I may take you up on it.

[balthazar]

Keep it in mind. I have some other parts left, both new & used.

[eldiablobanshee]

4.3L turbo syclone and typhoon please.

[loki]

anyone notice the e85 power from the 5.3L in the press releases? pretty much a 6.0L power if not 6.2.