Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon Engine Problems



  • d_creedd_creed Posts: 3
    I just got my truck back yesterday. They had it for 5 weeks...not a gmc problem but a local dealership problem that multiple complaints have been surfacing since early 2007.

    :) I love this truck and am torn on whether to sell it. :confuse:

    I definitly recommend an extended warranty for anyone who gets into a 2005-2006 that has the particular defects and VIN's that match the TEC DOC ID#1915 419.

    I recommend taking your canyon in and seeing if it is one of the potential problematic ones.

    If it is on the list have them do a cylinder leak down test.

    Supposedly the new heads fix the problem so it should be smooth sailing once the problem is taken care of.

    GMC should definitly warn folks that own the vehicles with the potential defects prior to the warranty period ending.

    It is obvious that they knew there was a problem since folks have been getting work done under warranty up to 80k miles.

    Bad business practice by GM for not informing the general public. Has anyone considered filing a BBB complaint and using this TEC DOC as the blatent evidence of the defect cover-up?
  • febrilefebrile Posts: 9
    I forgot to mention that the truck came from the factory with front end alignment and torsion bar adjustment out of specs. It had a wind/road noise that is more obvious on the passenger side. They said they installed insulation under the interior trim, but I can't tell it's improved. My truck was swapped in from another dealer, and I didn't drive it before I signed the papers. I regret that fact.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    It was supposed to be read other posts. In more extreme situations it was related to a bad engine block head that needs to be replaced.
  • winmagwinmag Posts: 3
    I guess I figured GMC was a smart enough company to attempt to actually remedy their problems, and eventually, they would get the bugs worked out and produce a reasonable product. Jury is still out on that one I guess.

    That's an interesting take on why they don't offer a manual tranny for the I5. I would figure a manual transmission would be better able to stand up to higher horsepower and torque - as I assume why they don't make automatic semi-trucks or dumptrucks for the most part. My take on it was that automatic transmissions are so popular that they just dropped it as an option on the bigger engines. I would MUCH rather have a manual transmission if I was using a bigger engine to actually do something that required it - like pulling something heavy or trying to extract the vehicle from a mud hole. Too many things to break on an automatic transmission and they seem to be made for highway cruising primarily. (I have a manual on my old S-10 which has 252,000 miles and have done NOTHING to the transmission).
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    The problem is that 99% of the people don't want manual trannys and the ones who do tend to buy cheap versions of the vehicle so they only build the manual with the 4 cyl engine. When I worked at the factory that built the Grand Am and the Olds/Buick versions we only built about 4 manual trannys a day out of 2 assembley lines running 60 cars each per hour. By the third year we dropped the manual tranny completely as it just wasn't cost effective. The reason you see manuals on mostly foreign vehicles is they are selling overseas too which more people want manuals.
  • febrilefebrile Posts: 9
    I hope no one is accepting GM's claim that the I-5 has the power of a 6-cylinder with the economy of a 4-cylinder. The 4.3L V6 in my '01 S-10 would run circles around my Colorado I-5. I drove a Cobalt while my truck was in the shop, and that even was faster from a stop AND at highway speeds. It's propaganda!
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    They didn't say which 6 cyl. Second you are comparing apples to oranges as your S-10 is a 4.3 vs 3.5 and I believe the 4.3 has more HP plus I'm betting the S-10 is a few hundred lbs. lighter.
  • The only reason GM went with the I5 was because the I6 would not fit in the frame that they bought from Isuzu. They had to lob one of the cylinders off to make it fit.
    So one has to wonder why did they not stick with the 4.3 since it is a proven power train? After all if you look at their 2k7 Full Size truck the 4.3 is still alive and well.
    GM just SCREWED UP just plain and simple!! :sick: :cry:
  • motorhead1motorhead1 Posts: 111
    The 4.3 is a good engine but the 3.5 has more hp than the 4.3. The hp on the 4.3 is 195 and the hp on the 3.5 is 220 on all except on the 07 which is 242. I have a 2004 ext. cab 4x4 with a 3.5 that just turned 50k miles and I love the truck. I haven`t had any trouble with the truck. I did change the tires just as soon as I bought the truck because the tires that came on it was not aggressive enough for the kind of driving I do. I also know from reading on this web site that the head could go at any time but I will wait and see what happends.
  • The I5 in NOT a Truck engine or GM would have opted to use it in their ALL NEW 2k7 Full Size lineup. They opted to use the tried and true 4.3 because it has low end torque at low RPMs unlike the I5 which you have to spool up to get anything out of it.
    When I was shopping for a replacement for my '95 Sonoma I was going to buy a Colorado/Canyon because I had very good luck with my Sonoma. But when I heard GM was going to use a 'neutered' I6 I ditched that idea rather quickly. I'm damn glad I did.
    When you build a truck to be a contender in a very competitive midsize truck market one thing you do not do is go in with one arm tied behind your back by putting in a weak power train. That is exactly what GM did.
    They could have stuck with the 4.3 or the I6.
    At the time the I6 was rated as one of the Top Ten Best Engines by Wards.
    GM screwed up!!
    The latest is GM is putting the V8(5.3) in the H3 because the I5 is a total disgrace in the H3.
    They should admit the same mistake and do something for the Canyon/Colorado.
  • avallesavalles Posts: 1
    I have an 06 Colorado with 14000 and have just begun to notice the rough idle with the engine. I have called the 800 number and gave them the tec doc #1915 419 but they acted like they had no clue what this # was. Am I better off giving this info to my local dealer to see if my vin # is associated with this tec doc? I really like this truck but if a future of headaches is approaching, I'd rather unload it!
  • There is a good chance you were routed to a help center someplace overseas where they barely understood ENGLISH!!
    Welcome to OUTSOURCING or as the say 'The Lowest Bidder' contractor. :cry:
  • febrilefebrile Posts: 9
    You seem to know a lot about trucks and engines. I didn't know GM uses/used the 3500 I-5 in anything but trucks.
  • If the 3.5(7) was as good as GM said it was they would have opted to use it in their 2k7 Full Size Trucks instead of the 4.3.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    The 4.3 is a bigger engine and so is the big trucks. Another thing, GM can only build so many 4.3 engines and may have figured that as long as they have to spend the millions to build or retool an excesting plant they may as well build a new engine that just may be able to pass future emissions that the 4.3 may not be able to.
  • Weak logic because the 4.3 use to be in the S10 which was a smaller truck then the Colorado/Canyon.
    The 4.3 comes from the same block as the 350 which is a plentiful as the problems GM has so that is not quite correct.
    But I guess it's always easier to TRY and make answers up when we don't know them.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    So you think that they take a 350, cut off 2 end cyl. and glue a plate on and abbra, cadabra, it's now a 4.3. Every plant can only produce so many of their product do to design of the plant, equipment, and man hours. So show me your facts that prove my 35 years in the auto industry with the last 16 years in future products is wrong. Yes the 4.3 was in the S-10 along with a few others but that still don't mean you will ever see it in the Colorado. I wouldn't want one. If I'm going to wish for a engine I would go with the 3.6 as it is a far more modern design.

    [edit] 4300

    The Vortec 4300 is a 90° V6 truck engine, replacing the Chevrolet 250 in light trucks and 200/229 90 degree V6s in passenger cars (the 200 and 229 were known as the V6-90, both were shortened versions of the Small Block Chevrolet). It is based on the 350 in³ (5.7 L) Chevrolet small-block V8. The engine first appeared in 1985 with the throttle-body injected LB4 in passenger cars (light trucks and vans had carburetors until 1987). In 1991, the limited-edition GMC Syclone featured a 280 hp and 360 ft·lbf turbocharged/intercooled LB4 with the first use of multi-port fuel injection on a Vortec V6. The central-port injected L35 (Vin 'W') debuted in 1992, with better breathing for 200 hp (150 kW). Another CPI engine, the LF6, joined the rest in 1996, while the LB4 was retired after 1998. In 2002, GM introduced a new multi-port injected LU3 engine, and a LG3 variant appeared soon after. This engines origins date back to 1955, when the original Chevy small-block V-8 was introduced.

    All Vortec 4300s use a cast iron block and heads and 101.60 mm (4.000") bore and 88.39 mm (3.48") stroke (bore and stroke dimensions the same as a 350). Connecting rods still measure 5.7" although the rod journal diameter is 2.25". They are OHV engines with two valves per cylinder and are produced in Tonawanda, New York and Romulus, Michigan. Power output of the new LU3/LG3 engines is 180-200 hp (134-150 kW) and 245-260 ft·lbf (332-353 N·m).

    4300 applications:

    * 1985-2005 Chevrolet Astro/GMC Safari
    * 1991-1993 GMC Syclone/GMC Typhoon
    * 1988-1995 Chevrolet Blazer/GMC Jimmy
    * 2001-2002 Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana
    * 1988-2003 Chevrolet S-10/GMC S-15
    * 1994-2001 Oldsmobile Bravada
    * 1985-1988 Chevrolet Monte Carlo and El Camino
    * 1985-1990 Chevrolet Impala and Caprice

    LU3 applications:

    * Chevrolet Astro/GMC Safari (base models)
    * Chevrolet Blazer/GMC Jimmy
    * Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana (base models)
    * Chevrolet S-10/GMC Sonoma
    * Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra (base models)
    * GMC Envoy
    * Isuzu Hombre (optional)
    * Oldsmobile Bravada (base model)

    LB4 applications:

    * 1991 GMC Syclone
    * 1992–1993 GMC Typhoon
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    I know the 4.3 is a 350 less 2 cyl. but is still a seperate engine and they can only build so many per year and it is also an old engine. The I5 is brand new and they must figure in the long run it is better or they didn't figure they could make enough 4.3's for the Colorado. Who knows and who cares bottom line is there isn't a 4.3 in the truck and I doubt there ever will be. If we're goiing to dream then lets dream V8. Though I'm no fan of the I5 it works in my truck and most likely 99% of the others with it so either like it or buy something else.
  • donn2390donn2390 Posts: 23
    Why would GM possibly want to return to yesterdays technology and use the 4.3? It was a great engine in it's day, but it's day is past. The I-5 is a far superior engine, with 40 more HP that the 4.3, and better mileage. It will only get better. They have now resolved the head issue.
    I have had many 4.3's, and love them, but the new engine is one sweet package. G :) et out of your rut and think modern...
Sign In or Register to comment.