V6 or V8 in a full-size Chevy Express cargo van?

[BigT]

What ever happened to the thread that talked about the advantages/disadvantages to going with a V6 vs the larger V8 engine in a full-size cargo van?

I know the Chevy Express comes with a couple V8 options and as well as a V6, and I know the downsides to running an underpowered engine, but I'm wondering if anyone went with the V6, how they like it, and what sort of fuel economy they're getting out of it.   

Does the V6 get noticeably better MPG than the larger V8?   If not, then heck with it!  No point going smaller if there's no significant increase. 

Having a tiny little Transit Connect with its pathetic 4-cylinder engine, believe me, I know what having not enough power can do to your fuel economy and engine life.  I only get my 27mpg if the van is lightly loaded and I'm cruising at 65mph with the CC engaged on flat ground.  Toss in a few hills or a kayak on the roof, and that 27 quickly drops to 20-22.  That's typically my around town/city mileage!

That being said, I'm still having a hard time getting past the lousy MPG numbers I'm seeing in full sized vans.  It's my main stopping point that keeps me from pulling the trigger on a new full sized cargo van.  

Given I'm interested in a minimalist approach, I'm hoping I can get away with the smaller, more fuel efficient engine.  

Does anyone here have the Express with the V6, and if so, are you happy or sorry you went with the smaller engine?

 

[user 37446]

I dont have an Express, a Ford or a Dodge van for that matter.  I have had a multitude of full sized pickups, with both 6's and 8's. I can say that in my past experience of 40 years of trucks, the 6's have not delivered any better economy overall than a mid-sized small block 8.

The very big small blocks like the 390 Ford and 400 Chevy got the worst (course they were engines from the late 70's and 80's with low compression) and the Chevy 350 and Ford 302/351 were pretty good on gas, for their power.  I've had the GM 292 straight 6, it was slow and no better mileage than the 350. Course most of the trucks had 4.10 gears except the GM, it was specs even lower.

Reading the forums keeps telling me that only a lightweight "shorty" van will be able to do very much with a 6 banger (older American). The new style euro's are all V6 and can do well on mpg and reasonable on power. The Ford ecoboost will give you better mileage than you reported with tons more power.

Sorry that I couldn't specifically respond to your question. I will say that whenever I see a CL ad for a van that has a 6, I just pass it by. It's not worth the lack of power for a measly 1-2 mpg, if it even will deliver that.

 

[Whitey]

I've got a friend who bought a Chevy full size cargo with the 4.3 and he deeply regrets it. No measurable fuel savings and a lot less power. 

I just bought a '15 Savana cargo with the 4.8 and it's a pig on fuel in the city.  If you're commuting with your van you'd better live close to work or have deep pockets.  Go for the V8 or stick with what you've got and spend your cash on things other than fuel.

 

[Van-Tramp]

Unless you are going to tow, there really is no reason to go with the larger motor. Modern V6 engines deliver more than enough power to push the van up a grade.

With that said, more modern motors get great MPG... even the V8's. The Chevy 1500 truck we use to pull the 7500 pound trailer gets 17+ MPG when not towing (highway of course). If I removed the kayaks, I could easily get 20 MPG. And this is with a 5.4l V8 in a full size truck. The biggest thing to take into account is the transmission; this truck's tranny has 6 speeds which means it can be in the optimal fuel saving gear all the time. My van, with only a 3 speed trans and slightly larger motor struggles to get 14 MPG (downhill with a tail wind).

V6 engines will normally get you around 20 MPG and maybe up to 25-26MPG but an still produce a ton of usable power. As long as you are not towing anything over 1500 lbs, you are safe with a V6 and will save a few dollars each time you fill.

 

[vtwinkicker]

I have the 2015 Savana (GMC van) with the 6.0L V8 and 6 speed trans. I get about 16 hwy and 14 city. Have been averaging 15 mixed driving. My van also has a high top and 4WD which knocks it down a mile or two on the mpg. I felt the 4.8L wasn't going to improve mileage that much and struggle more and if I want to tow in the future I have the power.

 

[Every Road Leads Home]

I've owned several trucks with both V6 and V8 options and i've never seen them deliver any better real world fuel economy. I've owned two chevy express's one with the 5.3 and one with the 6.0. I could get 20 mpg out of the 5.3 on the highway and about 16 with the 6.0. I love both engines, if I had to pick between the two i'd go with the 6.0 if I was going to tow and 5.3 if I knew i'd never tow or just occasionally.

Currently have a 2013 Silverado with the 5.3. It's an ext cab 4x4 and I get about 18 on the highway and 15 around town. I don't think a 6 cyl would do any better and it would lack power when I needed it the most. The six speed transmission is really nice, and if you're climbing a steep grade, I'll drop it down a few gears and it climbs a mountain like it's not even there.

 

[user 37446]

I've owned several trucks with both V6 and V8 options and i've never seen them deliver any better real world fuel economy.  I've owned two chevy express's one with the 5.3 and one with the 6.0.  I could get 20 mpg out of the 5.3 on the highway and about 16 with the 6.0.   I love both engines, if I had to pick between the two i'd go with the 6.0 if I was going to tow and 5.3 if I knew i'd never tow or just occasionally.  

Currently have a 2013 Silverado with the 5.3.  It's an ext cab 4x4 and I get about 18 on the highway and 15 around town. I don't think a 6 cyl would do any better and it would lack power when I needed it the most.   The six speed transmission is really nice, and if you're climbing a steep grade, I'll drop it down a few gears and it climbs a mountain like it's not even there.

Real world experience right there. 

So often people squeeze a MPG or 2 more and are happy on the flats yet if they pull a couple hills, (drive out west for example) the mileage goes south in a hurry and they are in the slow lane behind the trucks without the power to pass...

If my full-sized trucks are any example (and they should be), I'll take the 351/5.4/5.7/5.3 or 5.2 over their respective 6 cylinder counterparts any day.
Besides, you get a V8! 

 

[ArtW]

Other side of the argument
my shop truck was a 2000 Chevy Silverado with a 4.3l V6
It got 25 MPG pulling a 16 foot trailer with 5 Harleys on it
A similar truck we had on the lot (2002) but with a 5.7 you might get 20 highway pulling nothing on a good day (note, the 4.3 never did better than 25 MPG either)
My uncle Jack buys a new pickup every 5=6 years, and he always got the V6 until he couldn't, and still says the V6 got better MPG than the small V8, but he uses his pickup mostly like a car

My uncle Jack buys a new pickup every 5=6 years, and he always got the V6 until he couldn't, and still says the V6 got better MPG than the small V8, but he uses his pickup mostly like a car

That said, I'm in Texas, and not in the hill country
Now as a mechanic for a Taxi company (in the hill country) i recall Caravans with the I4 getting EXACTLY the same mileage as the V6, burning up transmissions every 125k miles, and not being able to pull steep grades with a full load of 4 passengers + driver
So if living in the hills / mountains I'd say you're much better off with a V8, just for the saving in wear and tear, and you'll probably get the same MPG as the 6
so to sum it up, a lightweight standard height van with short wheelbase and a light build MIGHT get a few more MPG, but only on flat land

 

[user 37446]

Other side of the argument
my shop truck was a 2000 Chevy Silverado with a 4.3l V6
It got 25 MPG pulling a 16 foot trailer with 5 Harleys on it

That said, I'm in Texas, and not in the hill country
Now as a mechanic for a Taxi company (in the hill country) i recall Caravans with the I4 getting EXACTLY the same mileage as the V6, burning up transmissions every 125k miles, and not being able to pull steep grades with a full load of 4 passengers + driver
So if living in the hills / mountains I'd say you're much better off with a V8, just for the saving in wear and tear, and you'll probably get the same MPG as the 6
so to sum it up, a lightweight standard height van with short wheelbase and a light build MIGHT get a few more MPG, but only on flat land

ArtW,

Please send me your shop truck. :s   I need a full sized truck (that can pull a 16 foot trailer with 5 Harleys), that can tow like about 1000-1500 pounds of trailer and what, 3,000+ pounds of bikes?  Maybe close to 5,000 pounds behind the truck?  

Reason I ask is that I had a 2015 Ford F150 4x4 XLT ecoboost 2.7 V6, 3.55 gears, that got at best 23 mpg highway at 65 mph level.  I did sell the truck, mainly cause I just couldn't justify keeping it, however I could probably afford a 2000 Silverado 1500...

I agree though that an underpowered motor will do more damage to the drivetrain than one that is loafing. Sometimes better mpg's isn't worth it...

 

[PineyCruisin]

What ever happened to the thread that talked about the advantages/disadvantages to going with a V6 vs the larger V8 engine in a full-size cargo van?

Is this thread you are thinking of? https://vanlivingforum.com/Thread-V6-vs-V8-van

Does anyone here have the Express with the V6, and if so, are you happy or sorry you went with the smaller engine?

I'm researching myself because I have the opportunity to view a 2005 Chevy 1500 conversion van with the 4.3L v6 and would love to hear how those people who have had/currently have these engines in their vans like them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would think that trucks are lighter than vans so may not give an apples-to-apples experience.

 

[lenny flank]

I've got the GMC Savannah with the smaller of the V8's. I get around 20mpg, depending on conditions.

I'd think a V6 would do just fine as long as one isn't hauling rocks or something.

 

[Dgorila1]

Everyone always debates the 6 vs 8 cylinder and gas mileage. In a truck/van you will only see a few mpg difference, if any due to the size and weight. I personally would get the V8 since it has more power and will get the same mileage as a 6. In the last few months I've driven 2 new Chevy 3500 vans from rental companies with the V6 and they were both dogs.......no power at all! 
    And both didn't have power mirrors, you had to manually adjust the mirrors! ALL cars nowadays have power mirrors...even the rental manager was surprised at the lack of power mirrors! What the heck is Chevy thinking on that? And the mirrors suck as far as viewing area..... HUGE blind spots and that convex smaller mirror that's part of the setup is worthless! Bad design from Chevy on these new vans. On the plus side there were a ton of power ports in front for electronics, although none by any of the back passenger seats.

 

[ArtW]

ArtW,

Please send me your shop truck. :s   I need a full sized truck (that can pull a 16 foot trailer with 5 Harleys), that can tow like about 1000-1500 pounds of trailer and what, 3,000+ pounds of bikes?  Maybe close to 5,000 pounds behind the truck?  

Reason I ask is that I had a 2015 Ford F150 4x4 XLT ecoboost 2.7 V6, 3.55 gears, that got at best 23 mpg highway at 65 mph level.  I did sell the truck, mainly cause I just couldn't justify keeping it, however I could probably afford a 2000 Silverado 1500...

I agree though that an underpowered motor will do more damage to the drivetrain than one that is loafing. Sometimes better mpg's isn't worth it...

I'm pretty sure that truck was an example of 'tolerance stacking' giving it better performance / mileage than most of it's kind, and I drive very gently, especially with $100K of Harley hooked to the hitch
Sadly it was not reliable, something in the wiring, a ghost problem
I had a Caprice with the early 4.8 that got 28 hwy, too

It is very true that a pickup is a lot lighter than a van, especially a conversion
that truck I don't think weighed more than 3500lb, IIRC my conversion van's curb weight, by title, is 4900lb

 

[Every Road Leads Home]

Other side of the argument
my shop truck was a 2000 Chevy Silverado with a 4.3l V6
It got 25 MPG pulling a 16 foot trailer with 5 Harleys on it

I'm not saying you're lying but I wouldn't be able to believe this unless I saw it for myself.  I've had both a blazer and an S-10 with the 4.3 with out towing anything they would be lucky to get 16 consistently.

 

[user 37446]

Isn't it amazing that Detroit was able to build a few cars and trucks that could beat todays CAFE standards but never seemed to be able to do it for a majority of vehicles? I had a 2000 Buick Lesabre 3.8 that consistently got 28-30 on the highway at 65. That's a full-sized sedan. The GM 3800 motor was one of the very best.

While I don't really believe there were any "100 mpg carburetors" that the oil industry quietly bought up and killed off, the engineers who designed the garbage in the 70's and 80's (ultra low compression V8's that were pathetic) certainly went the opposite direction from "efficiency".

From http://jalopnik.com/5378755/engine-of-the-day-buick-v6

"If we ever get around to doing an Ultimate Engine Survivors list (to accompany the Survivor Cars list), this engine will surely be near the top. 47 years and counting!"

 

[Every Road Leads Home]

My first car was a Buick Park Ave with the 3.8. Could't kill the thing and I was anything but gentle on it.

Some of my favorites.......

Buick/chevy 3.8
Jeep 4.0
Chevy 5.3
Chevy 6.0

 

[ArtW]

I'm not saying you're lying but I wouldn't be able to believe this unless I saw it for myself.  I've had both a blazer and an S-10 with the 4.3 with out towing anything they would be lucky to get 16 consistently.

Can't prove a thing, haven't driven the truck since I quit that job in 2005 or so
I don't think it was at all representative of the breed, other 1500s I've driven with the same motor got more like 18, and so did my Astro
they still had acceptable power in the flat lands, unlike the caprice, which I misremembered as an early 4.8, but was actually a 5.0
Good mileage, but no grunt off the line lol

 

[user 37446]

From: http://www.autotrader.com/best-cars/top-5-fuel-efficient-trucks-that-still-get-the-job-done-209161

[font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][font=Roboto, sans-serif][size=small][font=Roboto, sans-serif]2013 RAM 1500 HFE[/font]
[font=Roboto, sans-serif]Powertrain: 3.6-liter V6/8-speed automatic
Fuel Economy: 18 mpg city/25 mpg highway[/font]
[/font][/font][/size]
[font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][font=Roboto, sans-serif][size=small][font=Roboto, sans-serif]Frankly, V6-powered full-size trucks used to be a joke. And when we say used to be, we mean until just a few years ago. They existed mainly to keep the base price as low as possible. Every truck fan knew that if you wanted real performance, you had to get the V8.[/font][/font][/font][/size]

[font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][font=Roboto, sans-serif][size=small][font=Roboto, sans-serif]But there's a new crop of fuel efficient trucks with V6s in town, and the RAM 1500 HFE leads the way. With a 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 that cranks out 305 horsepower and 269 lb-ft of torque, the RAM 1500 HFE can do some serious work. At the same time, it nets 25 miles per gallon on the highway, and its standard 8-speed automatic delivers luxury-smooth shifts. If you don't want the HFE package, by the way, consider that the regular RAM 1500 V6 still achieves 17 mpg city/25 mpg highway.[/font][/font][/font][/size]

 

[user 37446]

Is this thread you are thinking of? https://vanlivingforum.com/Thread-V6-vs-V8-van




I'm researching myself because I have the opportunity to view a 2005 Chevy 1500 conversion van with the 4.3L v6 and would love to hear how those people who have had/currently have these engines in their vans like them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would think that trucks are lighter than vans so may not give an apples-to-apples experience.

Correct. Vans, especially conversion vans, have hundreds of pounds of extra weight. The other big factor is the rear end gear ratio's. Depending on the year and the transmission, that can make a big difference on perceived/actual performance and power off the line or on hills.

 

[user 37446]

I was curious about the 318 vs 302 vs 305 choice, as I had a 74' 302 in a F100 pickup, 4 speed, unknown read end. and it got 16 on highway at best. I have heard so much good about the little 5.2 that I looked it up, one poster on a performance car forum (http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/threads/ford-302-vs-318.19985/) said this:

[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]"If the 318 was given a high compression option in the early 70's, i think hands down it would tromp the 302. It is also much more reliable than its Ford counterpart. Once the mid 70's and 80's rolled around, the 302 was down to the same compression level as the 318 as was making at times less power than the "[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]boat anchor[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]". I think that it needs to be compared with other motors in regards to the same compression and setup. The smog 318 would be my choice any day over the smog 302 and even 351. I would choose it over a 305 or 350 [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]GM[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]. The ol' teen made the same or more power than those motors in the 70's, while retaining anvil like durability. I have a lot of respect for the [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]motor[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif], as do millions of other people. Plus, if setup right, it can be a screamer.Just my $.02."[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]"I had a 305 Chev tuned port [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]motor[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] and it ran just like a 5.0 Ford, not a steaming pile at all, very quick for a stocker actually. The early 305's were crap but then just about everything for a while there was, even the 350's were only rated at about 185hp in the mid to late 70's. I don't think there was much of anything from any make in that smog era that had any omph straight out of the box."[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I know that almost no one talks about V6's in vans as far as "power" goes. The reliability king is still a straight six (Ford 300) however almost no vans have that motor. So if the poster is willing to settle for a short w.b. low top van, he can likely "survive/make do" with the V6 but he likely won't have any real advantage over the small block 8's.  Astro's did better as they were lighter.[/font]