BobJob - that's close to what I'm thinking...1950 Chrysler Royal running a 4.3. I'm with Weldworks here, I plan on keeping my hood closed. You guys think that a 4.3 will move her along pretty good?
With an overdrive trans and some 3.42 to 3.73 it should run fairly well. They can pull around a half ton Chevy pickup well enough to fool some into thinking they're driving a V-8.
I had an '89 Chevy half ton with a 4.3/5spd combo and often pulled my 18' dovetail with a 3-5000 pound load on it. That truck would hold it's own at 65, although that was a helluva load behind it. It was work, but think about it - that little motor and trans was pulling along upwards of 10,000# running down the road at speed. No problems OR worried running it in just about anything we'd build here.
had a 92 dodge d150 with a v6 what a tolit! got the same milage as a v8 and no balls to go with it! finally got smart and parted it out. an inline or slant 6 seems to have more torque.
I'm runnin a 305 Big Block V6 in my 66 CMC,,, Traditional ??? Dual Thrush Mufflers, What a sound, and Ample power to run the roads with the best of em !!
The 4.3 Vortec V-6 is one of the best and most amazing engines GM ever built....IMHO. I keep thinking one would be 'dynamite' in a Track-T, especially with a full hood. 3-exhaust ports on each side...just like a flathead. JG
evolvo, Nice work. I saw an article on your car in some car mag and it tweeked my fancy because I've been toying with the idea of pulling the 3.8L from my 88' Olds and putting it into my beloved 74' Volvo 142. Problem is that I love the performance and mileage with the olds overdrive transmission (28mpg with air in Texas) and dont know how to convert to rear wheel drive gracefully. Any thoughts?
My '92 LeSabre 3.8 got an honest 29.5 on long intertstae trips at 70 MPH but how about a V-6 from a late 90's Camaro or Firebird or a 4.3? Would make the swap a lot easier. A 4.3 will pull 28 all day long in a light car. I had an '85 Monte Carlo with 4.3 TBI, TH200 ( not a 200-4R OD ) and 2.29 gears that would pull 28 Hwy. no sweat. It was a dog due to the trans and gears but with some 3.08 or lower gears and a 200-4R or 700R4 it would have been a lot more fun. My '92 LWB S-10 2WD was a 4.3 TBI, 700R4 and 3.08's. Would hold it's own against many V-8's and got 26 MPG average beating the snot out of it. Should have never sold it.
Wingspread7, Thanks,yeah Hot Rod ran a jpeg I sent them of the car in progress in the August '06 issue, surprised you remembered. I think the 3.8 from your 88' Olds is a different motor then mine. My 3.8 is a Series II that they started producing in 96', I think. The main difference is in the heads, mine is setup intake exhaust, in ex, in ex. Can't remember for sure but yours is, in ex, ex in in ex where you have two exhaust valves and two intakes right next to each other, I really don't know much about that series motor, sorry. I was able to turn my FWD motor 90* and bolt on the flywheel, clutch, bell housing and T5 tranny. All I had to do was install a pilot bearing in the crank, then everything bolted up. All that running gear came out of a 96' Firebird. I don't know if your bell housing bolt pattern is the same. GNICHOLS is running the same motor as I am but has bolted a RWD auto trans on it, check out his posts.
"Which of the 4.3 engines are the most desireable? I know just enough about them to know there are different designs. Can some provide a brief rundown of the 4.3's evolution? Pros and cons of different versions? " From my sometimes flawed memory: '85-old style flywheel and two piece rear seal. Non-roller lifters '86-New style flywheel and one piece rear seal. Non-roller lifters '87-to early 90s-one piece rear seal and roller lifters Starting in early 90s-Balance shaft above camshaft and roller lifters At some point they stopped machining for a block mounted fuel pump. The mount was surely gone once they went to a balance shaft. The fuel pump push rod and block mounted fuel pumps are NOT the same as a V8. I have a 4.3 from am '86 MonteCarlo so they were available in cars in '86. My engine came with stainless headers from the factory. I've seen the same headers in some pickups and Caprices. '85 Astro vans used a Qjet with some electrics on it. The intake was cast iron and heavy. Some 4.3 boat engines had a hi-rise iron Qjet intake which was even heavier. Edelbrock, Weiand and Holley made aluminum intakes for the 4.3. There were some GM Hipo intakes made for the race crowd. GM made some aluminum blocks and heads which were sold over the counter. The stock throttle body aluminum intake from my '86 engine could be machined to adapt a large 2 bbl carb. If you have hood clearance problems because of the combination of air cleaner and HEI trying to occupy the same space there is a low cap/rotor combo from '75-'76 straight 6 250s that remote mounts the coil.
biggest thing affecting performance on my old 305 gmc was the points. cheap points would float good ones let me wind it out. it ran te interstate fine at 70 with factory 4 speed and 3:08 rear if that tells you what gm thought about their torque. had dual glasspacks on mine
Quite nice sound on this V6 mopar http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Hooker-Aerochambers-on-v6_20568.htm
The 4.3 is actually more or less a truck motor - it was the replacement for the 250 inline and base motor in Chevy full size trucks and vans, starting in 1985. It also was more or less standard in the S10 Blazers and optional in other S10s (which could come with a 4 or a 2.8 V6 as well), as well as the Astro vans. Full size GM passenger cars (Caprice, Parisienne) got it as well, from '85-'89 or so. The midsize cars are a little more confusing but I see the 4.3 came in El Caminos starting again in 1985 so presumably it could be had in a Monte Carlo or Malibu, but the Pontiac Gran Prix if you wanted a V8 you got a 3.8, as presumably in the Buick and Olds models also. In any case because the 4.3 could be had in a full size truck, it's possible to find them with a manual trans - sometimes with a 5-speed that's a little more stout than the T5, in fact, although I don't know a lot about it to know how hard it is to use in other cars or how desirable the gear ratios are. I don't know what the big deal is about traditional or not. I'm sure if Chevy had made it starting in 1955 instead of 1985, people would have used them, especially in light cars like Model A's where putting a V8 in might mean cutting the firewall up and all that.
I think the 4.3 was also the evolution of the 200-229 engine. I had a 229 Malibu company car and while the engine was OK I wouldn't have selected it by choice. The 4.3 allowed Chevy to have something to use as an option for cars with 4 cyl as standard and as a base engine for cars that had the option of a V8. The 4.3 shared some 350 parts, development and machining from the 350 so I'm sure Chevy engineers used that to sell the idea to corporate. It is surprising that GM didn't "force" Chevy to use the corporate 3800 based on the old Buick engine. That engine had a history from way back and continued to be refined for the FWD cars. I think they even had a 4100 based on it in FWD cars. Maybe they couldn't make enough of them.
My 31 Pickup is running a 1975 Odd-fire Buick 3.8. It fit in without cutting the firewall, and you can run a mechanical fan. A stock A radiator will even cool it. I starting building mine in the late 70's when the small engines were popular in rods, plus it was cheap having minimal finances as a teenager at the time. It moves the truck along good, with decent mileage.
Nice refreshing thread getting the traditional view on V6 engines, free and open discussion never did any harm, seems there is a lot of good knowledge out there. I got a 3.0 liter Ford Ranger V6 and looking for a good source of knowledge website or forum wise to get rid of most of the wire harness not needed for a traditional looking project. Any help or direction would be appreciated. Thanks, Russ.
You can probably get the information you need on the 3.0 at: http://rogueperformance.com/WelcometoFredland.html Certainly not traditional, but I am putting a 2.8 Ford V_6 and 5 speed in my 1958 MGA. I chose this engine/transmission specifically because it is a low torque engine and I want to retain the original 4:33 wire wheel rear axle. If I used a V8, 4.0 or even a 3.0 v-6, the rear end probably wouldn't last for 10 minutes so I would be forced to use a stronger rear axle and lose the wire wheels. (The 2.8 is also about 35 lbs lighter than the original 4.) The mods I am making to this motor (cam, headers and larger carb) are designed to increase hp in the higher ranges and actually decrease low end torque. Still, with just under 200hp and slightly over 2000 lbs., it should be able to get out of its own way.
2.9 cologne - 060 over (3013cc) EFI + 5 speed not the world quickest but it halls ass when it needs too and 25+mpg on a run
Thanks Mscott, very useful site, I am sure I can get some info and help from it. Good luck with the MGA, nice body shape.
Yours is a little cleaner then this one. Wasn't there two sizes? 401 or there abouts, and one smaller? Jeff
So here's the 64 Buick 225 CI V6 that I rebuilt. Some folks used them for racing in dirt cars I was told. Strong and reliable. Achilles is the nylon coated aluminum timing gear, which gets brittle with age. Also, timing cover is aluminum and forms part of the cavity for the oil pump, to it might need a shim kit to account for wear. Same engine was offered in late 60's jeeps, where it was outfitted with a heavy flywheel and called the Dauntless V6. Made it into Rovers, also Chris Craft. Shared lots of parts with the sister engine, the Buick 300 V8.
Just read all the above and wanted to add what I've been working on. I'am puttting a 4.3 with a B&M blower in my 29 woodie. I sent the blower to Blown plum crazy in Portland Org. and they cut a 4.3 manifold and adapt the blower to it. I have it hooked-up to 400 auto and an eight inch rearend. I'll try and get some pic's out.
The Jalopy Journal
