Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Do you currently drive a 2019 Ford Ranger and live in Michigan?
A reporter would like to talk to you; please reach out to [email protected] for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

2001 GM 4.2 liter, 260hp in line 6

kkempenkkempen Posts: 4
edited March 2014 in Chevrolet
According to the September 2000 issue of
Automobile magazine, (page 22), GM will offer a 4.2
liter Vortec, 260 hp, inline six in the 2001
Trailblazer (Blazer replacement)
Does anyone know if GM plans to offer this engine
in the Sierra, or Silverado?
Sounds like a good replacement for the old 4.3 V6,
with nearly the HP of the 4.8 V8.
«1

Comments

  • swobigswobig Posts: 634
    this and the other inline 6 (3.6L?) were to go in the next S-10. Would be nice...
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    .
  • swobigswobig Posts: 634
    but I'm not in favor of the "bigger is better" theory. If they can get 260 horse out of the 6 cylinder, why put the V-8 in that only gets 10 more? Probably will get better mileage also. They'll probably put it in it though just so someone can have a inflated ego and a V-8 sticker on his door. hehehe
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    have inflated egos, especially the ones that drive Z-71's..... ;)

    Dean
  • ryanbabryanbab Posts: 7,240
    Yep my EGO is sky high due to my Z71

    Ryan
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Posts: 4,162
    What would you rather have?

    a 1/4 bbl or a 1/2 bbl?
    a tundra or a silverado?
    a 4 point buck or a 12 point?

    I'll take the V-8 thank you..

    I'm not in favor of the smaller engine more HP theory..

    - Tim
  • swobigswobig Posts: 634
    smaller is not always better, but it's the way it's probably going to be. 350 replaced with a 325. 305 replaced with a 293. They'll probably be replaced with even smaller engine's that produce more power. Why wouldn't you want a smaller, more powerful, more fuel efficient engine?? I don't understand the 8.1L engine. I've heard it will get better mileage than a 454, but I would think something smaller would get even better mileage. Big block 396 or 427 would have been my choice, but they'll probably sell a bunch of them because many people want "the biggest." But it's not always the best...
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110
    I too, was surprised by the 8.1. I really think the industrial market drove a lot of this decision, coupled with the fact that the cylinder-cutoff feature should give it better mileage than the 454. The pure displacement of the 8.1 gives it remarkable potential for hp in the marine and generation applications.

    My uncle has place an order for an 8.1 w/Allison. I will be first in line to test drive his truck!
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Posts: 4,162
    how the industry is going...

    My 350 was replaced with a 364.

    When I get a 2002..it will still be a 6.0. I don't look for the biggest...just enough to make me feel comfy....and the 6.0 did it.

    - Tim
  • swobigswobig Posts: 634
    6.0L=325 horse. It probably does have a lot of potential, but why not put some of that in there now. Over 2 liters more for 15 horse seems silly. And I know it's for torque, but Ford will probably follow suit with there V-10 with similar numbers. And I don't think the 6.0L was meant as a replacement for the 5.7L (350) - the 5.3L was. I think Ford needs something above the 5.4L in the 3/4 ton like GM has. I have a few medium duty trucks with the GM 366 motor. Do any of you know if this engine is similar to the 364 and is the "old" 327 similar to there "new" 325?? I've heard there related somehow, but was curious if anybody knows how.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Posts: 4,162
    I know the 5.3 replaced the 5.7...but for me it wasn't gonna cut the mustard.

    Enjoy the smaller is better theory...I have no squak that they are more HP...just not for me...and not a damn thing you can do to stop me from buying a 6.0 to replace my 5.7...

    LOL

    - Tim
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110
    undersquare pistons are the only thing similar between the old 327 and new 325. Everything else isn't even close.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    8 plugs.....

    Dean
  • swobigswobig Posts: 634
    what about the 366 or is that the same story?

    Tim, I don't blame you for buying the 6.0L. Probably gets better mileage than the 5.7L and is definately more powerful. If I could get a 4X4 3/4 ton with the 5.3L I would have, but had to get a 1/2 ton. I really don't understand why the won't let you get the 5.3L - my concern was mileage. Probably get 2 mpg or less better mileage. Happy trucking...
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Posts: 4,162
    of 4WD and all the suspension may be too much for a truck that weighs almost 600 lbs more?....you would think not?.....

    it comes down to Cafe ratings...at 8600 GVW...it don't matter.....

    perhaps they couldn't make a 7200 GVW 4x4?...ya know?

    Oh well

    - Tim
  • Ratings are a bit misleading. You really need to look at the specs on the engine and it's power curve. If you have to rev close to 5K to get peak HP what good is that? An engine that devlopes 325HP close to 5K won't generate near that in normal RPM ranges. I went for the engine with the most torque in the lower power band and develops peak HP at a lower RPM. That was the 454 in a 2500 Classic Sierra 2000 truck. Very good for pulling. I've got as much as 15.2 MPG out of it so fuel economy isn't near as bad as I thought it would be.

    Your choice will or should be based on usage of your truck.
  • swobigswobig Posts: 634
    but even pulling hills the tranny (auto) will downshift and pull higher rpm's. I don't do a lot of pulling, but up in these hills it does downshift quite a bit and I get up to 4K rpm's quite a bit...
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110
    Peak doesn't mean anything...it is your curve. Take the GM 6.0 or the Ford v10. You have 330 ft lbs and 370 ft lbs of torque, respectively, from 1200 rpms up to redline...IT DOESN'T MATTER where the peak is! The peak is only a couple % more. You feel like you have max power at all speeds and rpms.

    Someone said it best when they said it just feels like you have 'X' amount of acceleration at all time.
  • "have inflated egos, especially the ones that drive Z-71's..... ;)"

    All that is needed for an inflated ego is the little bowtie on the grill.
  • "You have 330 ft lbs and 370 ft lbs of torque, respectively, from 1200 rpms up to redline."

    WRONG.

    The V10 has 425 lbs of torque at peak. Where do you get 370lbs?
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110
    F150idiot

    you have 370 ft lbs at 1200 rpms.
    You have 370 ft lbs at redline.

    and in between 1200 rpms and redline you have (collective gasp): THE PEAK!
  • Maybe you should stick with your low quality GM products. You seem to at least think you know everything about them anyway. Maybe from all the years of constantly working on them.

    It is obvious you don't know much about Fords, particularly the V10 which DOES HAVE 425 lbs torque at peak.

    Take a hike loser.
  • Per Ford's site as well as Edmunds site.

    The V10 generates 310 horsepower at 4,250 rpm and 425 foot-pounds of torque at 3,250 rpm.

    I guess post 21 is just another example of "lies" you post here. I don't claim to know much about mechanics, but if I were as clueless as you, I would never call myself an Engineer without specifying myself as a "GM" Engineer. That way nobody would expect much intelligence from you.
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110
    Another example of you making up stuff I didn't say just to have someting to b*tch about.

    I was complimenting Ford, and you still cry.

    I never said the Ford didn't peak at 425. I was illustrating how Ford has torque across the rpm range. Meaning from 1200 rpms up to redline it has AT LEAST 370 ft lbs of torque.

    What about do you not understand? Have you ever seen a torque curve? Do you know what it indicates? Do you know what horsepower means?

    Do you realize I was complimenting the Ford V10? I was saying how impressive its low end torque started at 370 at 1200 (practically at idle) and stayed AT LEAST that much all the way thru its peak and up to redline. There is no engine out there that can do that. That was praise for Ford. And you called me a loser and a clueless engineer.

    When you are the one who doesn't understand how I was using the torque curve to compliment Ford's accomplishment and product.

    This shows your objectives, quite clearly....

    You are depriving a village somewhere of their idiot...
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110
    after that little tirade, can we get back to discussing the new inline engines.

    Does anyone know anything new about the new rumored I-5 from Ford?

    Or are there any new displacements in a straight block coming from GM?

    Some of you folks that get Ford newsletters or spy reports or whatever: How is Ford attacking the variable timing solution? I've seen prototypes from Ford in very small engines (2.0 liter 4 cylinder) using electronic solenoid valves. But at the time they doubted they could use that because of the huge power requirement to run the solenoids.

    GM seems to be going to the route of mechanical complexity (advancing cam gear by oil pressure) and Ford going the route of electronic complexity. Any news? GM gets 25 degree variability. With electronic controls, you can get as much advance or retardation as you need for timing, but I'm not sure you need anymore than 25, unless your engine red lines at 10K.
  • Oooooh, ok. I guess this is what is called backpeddling and denying ever stating something.

    I don't care if you compliment the V10 or not. I read the same thing everyone else read.
  • I read the same thing everyone else did. Maybe you should change your name to F150 idiot. But what do I know, I'm just a dope.

    LOL
  • You posted it, I didn't. LOL!
  • This topic is about the new GM Atlas engine family I-6
    (not that sorry excuse for a powerplant, two cylinders grafted onto a V8, wheezy sounding, crappy mileage, routinely trounced by the 6.0L V-8 that GM offers, one big pumping loss V-10 that Henry Ford makes.)

    Lets talk about the 4.2l engine.

    1. I saw that it has a hollow cylinder welded through the oil pan for 4wd applications, allowing the driveshaft the left front tire to pass thru the engine space. This is a pretty cool way to lower the engine in the engine bay without intruding on driveline space. Allows the engine to be mounted lower for a lower center of gravity and lower hoodline. Both cool.

    2. I read that the engine family will have provisions for oil spray piston cooling. At first only used on the I-5 turbo variant, but could possibly be used on high output, naturally aspirated versions to come. Very cool (literally)

    3. Variable exhaust cam timing eliminated the need for a separate EGR system. Extremely cool because this system is usually a long term reliability problem. (How many of you have had EGR system problems?) Now the whole system is basically incorporated in the combustion chamber. Sweet. Oil pressure actuation is how Toyota advances/retards the cam too. Very reliable.

    4. Finally GM will have a powerful I-4 for the small truck market. I would estimate a power output of 160hp or so from a 2.4-2.6l I-4. Nice.

    5. One question I have is that they are initially marketing the I-5 turbo as a V-8 substitute with similar power and better mileage. In my mind the 4.2l I-6 is already a better engine than the 4.8l V-8. Only making a few less horses and probably comparible in torque to that short stroke V-8. So if the 260hp I-6 is going to be outpowered by the turbo 3.5l I-5, what kind of hp numbers can we expect? Is 290hp unreasonable? I hope so. That would really motivate a small pickup or SUV.
    I can envision a new age Typhoon type SUV with a turbo-5 and automatic calmly whistling by a laboring Mustang GT and its big-haired owner. (With a jet ski in tow as well, mind you) Fun
  • From Olds Website:

    "all-new Vortec 4200 DOHC inline six-cylinder engine
    270 horsepower
    275-lb. ft. of torque at 3600 RPM
    90% peak torque available between 1200 and 5600 RPM
    all-aluminum engine
    *Estimated combined fuel economy 20.6 mpg based on preliminary testing. "


    So now we have 270hp @ 5600??? rpm
    and 275ft-lbs torque @ 3600rpm

    Compare to the 4.8l V-8:

    270hp @ 5200rpm
    and 285 lb-ft torque @ 4000 rpm

    Not much difference. I guess the old saying isn't always true. (there ain't no replacement for displacement). In this case, there is a replacement, it's called four valves per cylinder and STROKE.


    I like the sound of this engine, a lower torque peak, and a higher hp peak. That equals driveability. Can't wait for a test drive.
This discussion has been closed.