V6 vs V8 van?

[MrNoodly]

Let's compare some apples: the available gasoline engines in Chevy Express vans.<br><br>4.3L V6 &nbsp; &nbsp; 195 hp @ 4600 rpm &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;260 lb/ft of torque @ 2800 rpm<br><br>4.8L V8 &nbsp; &nbsp; 280 hp @ 5200 rpm &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;295 lb/ft of torque @ 4600 rpm<br><br>5.3L V8 &nbsp; &nbsp; 310 hp @ 5200 rpm &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;334 lb/ft of torque @ 4500 rpm<br><br>6.0L V8 &nbsp; &nbsp; 324 hp @ 4700 rpm &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;373 lb/ft of torque @ 4400 rpm<br><br>[ 6.6L V8 turbo diesel, for comparison — 260 hp / 525 lb/ft ]<br><br>See that the V6 hits its top torque at 2800 rpm. That's much lower than the V8s. One way to look at is, woo-hoo, maximum torque comes on soon! The other is, boo-hoo, the torque doesn't improve no matter how much more you spin the engine. In fact, without seeing a dyno chart, I'm guessing the torque drops.<br><br>Notice that while the 4.8L V8 is only a half litre larger, it makes about 50% more horsepower. That's because the greater the piston surface area there is to work with, the higher the horsepower. In fact, if you had a 6-cylinder and an 8-cylinder with the exact same displacement, the 8-cylinder would make more power. A 12-cylinder of the same size would make even more.<br><br>On top of this, the 4.3L V6 is the oldest engine design of the bunch. It's the venerable Small Block 350 with two cylinders lopped off. (By the way, a proper V6 should have a 60-degree V rather than a 90-degree one in order to have proper balance and run smoothly. GM added a counterbalancer to help cancel vibrations. A lot of engines do that. It's just not the optimal way.) The full size vans and pickups are the only GM vehicles still using the 4.3L V6. It has more than one foot in the grave because it's at a developmental dead end. It's a tough engine, like the Big Block it came from, but it's not efficient. That's why it's no longer used in the mid-sized pickup.<br><br>Torque matters when you're hauling loads. That's why diesels are so prized in those situations. The Chevy 6.6L turbo diesel makes less horsepower than the 4.8L gas engine, but, holy cow, 525 lb/ft of torque!<br><br>All that said, do the numbers make much difference in day-to-day use by the average vandweller? As Grummy wrote above, a V6 will <em>probably</em> leave you wishing for more power. It depends on how and where you drive and what you're carrying.

 

[MrNoodly]

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">also the v8 might not get as better fuel consumption as the v6 as it uses more fuel for the extra 2 cylinders.</span>

<br><br>But if 6 cylinders need to spin faster than a 8 in order to make the same power, then the fuel savings disappears.

 

[MK7]

&nbsp; <br style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;"><br style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">For example: 1999 Ferrari with v8 395 horsepower and a 2011 Ferrari v6 with 400+ horsepower.</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">&nbsp;

<br><br>This is cool and all, but most of us are looking at buying a $2000-3000, old as heck van to live in.&nbsp; <br>Don't think we can compare the engineering of a hand-built motor of an exotic car with that of a mass produced FURD. $2000-3000 can't even buy half of the rear wing of a 1989 Lamborghni Countach....I think they're like $7000 for a real one. <br><br>Looking at the manufacturers' numbers for gas mileage, there seems to be about 1-2 MPG difference between the V8 and V6 model for their cargo vans, empty. With a fully loaded vandweller's van full of stuff, that V6 is going to work really hard to get it moving from a stop, as compared to the V8, so MPG might be better in the V8.

 

[MK7]

I have one of each. A 93 Safari with the 4.3 V6, and a 95 full size with a 350. <br>I know there probably is a big difference in weight between these two, but the Safari feels like it has a lot more power. I'm sure gearing also plays a part.&nbsp; <br>-Bruce

<br><br>People on the Astro/Safari forums will agree with you. The Safari is definitely peppier because it's much lighter (only a little bigger than a minivan). Also, your V8 is a fully loaded conversion van while your Safari looks like a passenger model, so the weight difference is even bigger now. <br><br>Switch the V6 into your green van and the V8 into the Safari and see what happens <img src="/images/boards/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" align="absmiddle">

 

[DollarJoe67]

Wow.&nbsp; I really started something here.&nbsp; Double checked the ad.&nbsp; Its a '95 Ford e150 with the inline 6.

 

[Ballenxj]

DollarJoe67, Yes you got a very good debate going here. <br>RE; The 95 Ford Van with a straight six, my best advice is to drive it first, and if you can find hills and mountains nearby, drive it up hill or better yet in the mountains to see how it works for you. <br><br>MK7, Both my vans have a full interior with passenger seats and fold down bed, so any weight difference will be mainly due to the size difference. <br>Since you brought up the V8 vs V6 swap (and I understand what you meant) I thought I'd post a link to this fun video where a poor little Astro Van with a V8 tries to take on a Lamborghini at the Drags. Pietro1992, this one is for you as well. <img src="/images/boards/smilies/wink.gif" class="emoticon bbc_img"> <br> <br>-Bruce

 

[ccbreder]

V6 v8 i6 i would have to get what i can afford as long as it had lower miles and ran well. I drove the Canadian Rockies with an 66 vw 4 cyl camper van. It was slow going up, but it came down fine. Most modern engines are coupled to transmissions that help with the whole driving thing.

 

[Ballenxj]

If you can handle the Canadian Rockies in a VW Van, I don't think you will have trouble with "any" other type of Van/engine combination. <img src="/images/boards/smilies/wink.gif" class="emoticon bbc_img"> <br>-Bruce

 

[squatting dog]

That Inline six should be a 300 cu in. That's a 4" bore and a 3.98 stroke. Great torque making motor. Just not a high speed puppy. A plus is that they have been around forever and are tried and true. It's said that after the nuclear war, cockroaches will be driving inline ford sixes. &nbsp;<img src="/images/boards/smilies/biggrin.gif" class="emoticon bbc_img">

 

[ccbreder]

If you can handle the Canadian Rockies in a VW Van, I don't think you will have trouble with "any" other type of Van/engine combination. <img src="/images/boards/smilies/wink.gif" class="emoticon bbc_img"> <br>-Bruce

<br>&nbsp;it was very slow going up, very slow. thank you granny gear.

 

[Ballenxj]

That Inline six should be a 300 cu in. That's a 4" bore and a 3.98 stroke. Great torque making motor.

<br>Had a friend years gone by that swore by these engines. He always said that you need to replace that old log of an exhaust manifold with a set of headers. He claimed that headers woke the old Ford straight six right up.&nbsp; <br>-Bruce

 

[karen]

This is a great topic. I'm looking for a van and had been keeping my eyes open for a V-6 rig, but now after this thread I'm not too sure. I wanted the V-6 for fuel economy, but now I'm thinking that perhaps a small V-8 would be better.