I've noticed alot of younger guys who hate on these modern V6s kids that didn't grow up In the 80s or 90s. yeah by today's standards these V6s are not fast. But when comparing to most stuff from any era or decade before them they are badass. Most V6s these days will run circles around any older V6s and alot of older V8s even larger cubic inch V8s. technology has made modern small displacement engines awesome. My 2012 Impala has the 3.6 v6 with the entry level trifecta tune and is a blast to drive during acceleration. Especially when you consider every V6 I had before it had 160 to 185 hp. And this engine producers slightly over 305 hp. young guys these days just don't realize how good they have it when modern V6s produce 270 to over 300hp on Avg!
on my last truck, I had the 4.8L in my 09 silverado. it had 295hp/305lb-ft tq/ atleast it was rated at that. the new 4.3l kicks ass in my opinion. pair that with something more modern than that junk 4l60e then you have something lol
Sam Fascione a 5200 lbs truck especially. I did see a modified 3.5 eco boost F150 out ran a stock syclone in the 60 and 1/4 mile. Not sure how much the F150 with crew cab weighs. But it hauled ass. I own a 2.7L twin turbo Ecoboost v6 and I think I timed it to about 7s. I had it in Sport Mode, with Sam’s Club 93 octane. I was also running it with traction control, brake torqued to about 3000 rpm and with rear differential locked. Not sure if the 93 octane made that much difference. My 2000 Regal GS supercharged 3800 series2 hit 60 in about 5 seconds or faster. My Grand National probably hits 60 in about 3.6 or 3.7 seconds, which is pretty fast. The stock Grand National hit 60 in aboot 5.5 seconds. The Regal turbo T in 87 with the LC2 motor, same as GN, was a tad bit faster because it was lighter. The GNX hit 0 to 60 in 4.5 seconds. But it had an upgraded a suspension, which help plant the rear wheels on the pavement. If a regular GN has the suspension upgrade it could probability hit 60 in about 5 seconds. The GNX had a little more hp and torque. I guess my point to all this is, throw a supercharger, which I believe there is an aftermarket one or slap a turbo on it. Much easier said then done, but a turbo would wake-up the little sleeping giant.
Got to be high altitude and 87 octane. These things are beasts on e85 at sea level. Ive seen 4.3’s on e85 beat 5.3’s. In fact, you can use a stopwatch on RU-vid and verify it yourself.
Not really built for that sort of driving, have to make few changes my guy. I'd say the added weight is one problem. Mine being the standard cab rear drive gets up a bit quicker. I like the 4.3 just dnt like the AFM I can't see were it saves gass at all. AFM is on an off unless you on even road light foot
put some forced induction on it. The LV3 motor was put in a Grand National and with 9psi of boost it was making over 500whp. This v6 is screaming forced induction.
Chase O Unfortunately no I don’t. The person who swapped the LV3 motor into his, he had to do a lot of fabrication work, in addition to the intake manifold he fabb’ed up. Which allows him to use port fuel injection. I don’t think he utilized the direct injection. I think if you were putting it in a truck, it obviously would require fabrication, along with being able to tune the engine controller. Which I’m not sure if there is an aftermarket to support that. The LV3 though, is built designed to make and handle the power you throw at it. I think the guy with the LV3 Grand National said with stock internals it could probably handle making about 700whp. Then he said he would need to up grade the rods and pistons to forged steel and aluminum respectively. One guy who does a lot of work with 86 and 87 turbo Regals was able to squeeze over 600whp out of the stock short block, with exception of the cam. He had some good aluminum ported heads on the 109 turbo Regal block and racked up over 10 minutes of mid 9 second passes out of it. He initially dipped into the 9s range with a Precision 6265 turbo. I’m not sure if he was leaving on a trans brake or not, but it was pretty impressive to see knowing what he was running. He made into the mid 9’s with a 6766 Precision turbo. Eventually main cap 3 cracked. The biggest problem with the 109 block is that it has to be mounted rather rigidly and once you hit a certain power level the block will split. Even with that some guys have managed to run into the 8.70’s with the stock block and their block survived it. Goes to show what great tuning and just great knowledge can net you when you’re pursing something.
Yes, because your eco boost has twin turbos and the gm 4.3 v6 is naturally aspirated. That’s not a fair comparison and it’s not that slow for a base engine
The 3.3l V6 I'm the f150 would be its competitor, for 2021 it comes with a 10 speed now, but chevy is kinda almost replacing the 4.3 with a 4 cylinder turbo...
@UCzqX3xX7j2HpbK-gxXN7dBw actually you will be replacing the whole engine because of the twin turbos the engine wears out faster, also a 6.2l Silverado could beat your piece of shit Ford. And I’m not saying ecoboost f150s are slow either I have a 2016 f150 3.5 for a company truck
@@takuyatanaka5587 the 4.3 used to be based on the Gen 1 small block architecture. In 2014 they changed it to LS architecture. That is one of the reasons why it makes more power now. On paper the 4.3 makes the same HP and less torque then say a 2002 5.3. Peak HP and torque numbers don’t tell the whole story though.
