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

[user 37446]

OK, I stand (sit) corrected, I guess.  PineyCruisin bought a really nice van with a V6, which I would have been loathe to do. However, in researching some more, it appears that there are some satisfied customers out there:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.trucks.chevy/lresd3ifmUk[1-25]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Sorry to hear of One-Shot's problems with the 4.3. I have a 2003 Savana [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](7,200 lb GVW) van with the 4.3. I only have had it for 18 mos., but it [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]has been a great engine and great vehicle so far. I have had zero [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]problems with it, it has never been back to the dealer, though there is [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a recall to replace the rear license plate light (since when does a rear [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]license plate light merit a recall?).[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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:[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/vortec/apps/vehicle/4300.htm[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://media.gm.com:8221/division/2004_prodinfo/powertrain/truck/index.html[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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."[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]end of quote[/font]

 

[hepcat]

[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]

I had a '92 E150 low-top, not-fancy van conversion that I bought new late in '93 with the 300 straight six and the E4OD trans...  what a bullet-proof beast that was.  I towed a 4500lb sailboat from Lake County CA (near Sonoma and Napa Cos) to San Diego and back a couple of times. It wasn't a screamer over the summit, but it made it every time without complaining.  That van and my '98 Astro AWD with the 4.3 are two vehicles I'd wished I'd never sold.

 

[Alcatraz]

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.

I had a 2002 trailblazer  and it was averaging 20-21 mpgs on the freeway, it sucked in the city, about 15-16 mpg.

 

[BigT]

Now I'm starting to investigate the possibility of getting one of the new(er) full-sized Ford Transit vans with the V6.  
The MPG estimates are really sounding too good to be true!  (20/27).  Can that be right??

 

[ZoNiE]

I own two Ford Explorer Sport Trac's (the four door shorty bed pickup). One is a 4.0L V6 the other a 4.6L V8. They get the SAME mpg. The V8 tows more.  It also has one extra cog in trans. probably helps a bit.

I once owned a 1993 S10 Blazer Tahoe with the 4.3. Got 14-15 MPG. Had a terrible Air Conditioner (and it was R12) It was a dog. Makes a good boat motor though... :dodgy:

 

[NeedAnEscape]

The MPG estimates are really sounding too good to be true!  (20/27).  Can that be right??

You sure that's not for the diesel? Both gas engines are rated at 19mpg highway.

 

[makenmend]

I have a 2015 transit T350 with the 3.7 base engine. around town gets me 16/17 mpg, freeway  (wind makes a difference) 18/20 mpg.
back road cruising mid 50s I've seen close to 22.

MM

 

[BigT]

I have a 2015 transit T350 with the 3.7 base engine. around town gets me 16/17 mpg, freeway  (wind makes a difference) 18/20 mpg.
back road cruising mid 50s I've seen close to 22.

MM

Base engine?  Does that mean no turbo?  I didn't know you could get the larger sizes with a normally aspirated engine.  

I've never liked the way the Transit's looked, but I do like the way the high top is part of the body, just like my TC.  

I've been seeing them on CL a lot lately, but I can't decide if models that are less than 3 years old with low miles for reasonable prices is a good thing or a sign of them being "shop queens" that owners want to dump and run away from.  

I should go look around the Transit forums to see what, if any, issues owners are having to deal with.  I haven't had any issues with my little TC.

 

[makenmend]

BIg T,
Yes the 3.7 is a normally aspirated engine, 275 hp 260 ft lbs torque.
Mine was an ex airport rental in Maine. Auto Nation bought a butt load of them when the rental company rotated there fleet at 12 months.
Had 22+ K  so still under warranty till 36 K, that's long since gone I'm at 41 K without a single problem. It is a low roof 148'' WB T350 XLT so has most bells and whistles and was half the cost of new in June of last year,  like most here I'm on a fixed income, so monthly I added to my conversion, to where I was able to make the RTR in January from East Texas, and today I could go anywhere on a whim. In fact headed to Colorado in 2 weeks to meet with friends.

MM

 

[user 37446]

BIg T,
Yes the 3.7 is a normally aspirated engine, 275 hp 260 ft lbs torque.
Mine was an ex airport rental in Maine. Auto Nation bought a butt load of them when the rental company rotated there fleet at 12 months.
Had 22+ K  so still under warranty till 36 K, that's long since gone I'm at 41 K without a single problem. It is a low roof 148'' WB T350 XLT so has most bells and whistles and was half the cost of new in June of last year,  like most here I'm on a fixed income, so monthly I added to my conversion, to where I was able to make the RTR in January from East Texas, and today I could go anywhere on a whim. In fact headed to Colorado in 2 weeks to meet with friends.

MM

[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]"...and was half the cost of new in June of last year,"[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Now that's how you put the "cheap" in CheapRvLiving!  Way to go![/font]

 

[cortttt]

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.

Excellent gas mileage for that big engine and the 4WD. Congrats on that

 

[cortttt]

OK, I stand (sit) corrected, I guess.  PineyCruisin bought a really nice van with a V6, which I would have been loathe to do. However, in researching some more, it appears that there are some satisfied customers out there:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.trucks.chevy/lresd3ifmUk[1-25]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Sorry to hear of One-Shot's problems with the 4.3. I have a 2003 Savana [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](7,200 lb GVW) van with the 4.3. I only have had it for 18 mos., but it [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]has been a great engine and great vehicle so far. I have had zero [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]problems with it, it has never been back to the dealer, though there is [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a recall to replace the rear license plate light (since when does a rear [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]license plate light merit a recall?).[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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:[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/vortec/apps/vehicle/4300.htm[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://media.gm.com:8221/division/2004_prodinfo/powertrain/truck/index.html[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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."[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]end of quote[/font]