Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
2001 GM 4.2 liter, 260hp in line 6
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.
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.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Dean
Ryan
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
My uncle has place an order for an 8.1 w/Allison. I will be first in line to test drive his truck!
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
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
Dean
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...
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
Your choice will or should be based on usage of your truck.
Someone said it best when they said it just feels like you have 'X' amount of acceleration at all time.
All that is needed for an inflated ego is the little bowtie on the grill.
WRONG.
The V10 has 425 lbs of torque at peak. Where do you get 370lbs?
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!
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.
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.
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...
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.
I don't care if you compliment the V10 or not. I read the same thing everyone else read.
LOL
(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
"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.
Several features I really like about straight sixes, especially a good on like the one on that old Z car.
Serviceability is great, plugs all on one side, intake system on the other. Single overhead cam simplicity, good breathing, long crankshaft has lots of main bearing support. They are smoother than V6's.
As for variable camshaft timing, I like the simplicity of a mechanical, oil pressure derived system, while likely more reliable, if it did have a problem, you would be less likely to identify it than an electronic system that could put up a trouble code.
The oil spray to the piston underside is used on some air/oil cooled Suzuki designs. Designed primarily to maintain a more even engine temperature than air cooled designs, with lighter weight than liquid cooled. GM has partnerships with Suzuki.
I have been looking at getting a Silverado with
the 4.8L V8 but now I might wait for the I6 if
it's standard in the Silverado.
Its kinda what GM did when they came out with the Vortec engines. They had the 4.3 Vortec back in '92 I think, but they didn't upgrade the technology to the truck line until '96.
Anyway, I would think the new I6, I5, and I4 Atlas family will find its way into the fullsize and compact trucks by 2003 across the board. This will coincide with the demise of the 4.3L. It will be a sad day at GM when the final living iteration of the classic "small block" Chevy ends production. 40 years ain't a bad run though. I'm sure marine variants will be around for a few more years to come. (And there will probably be SB Chevy water pumps available in auto parts stores until the day man leaves this planet ! )
available in the fullsize until the 2005
model year. Est 300hp for the fullsize.
I'm going to start saving my lunch money
now!
The 5.4 likes to eat 5.3........theeesssss
The new Trailblazer show car had a real beefy looking real axle. Much larger than the old 7.625" 10 bolt in the existing Blazer and larger even than the 8.5" 10 bolt in the ZR2. Looks a little like a scaled down version of the GM corporate 14 bolt 9.75" axle for the 3/4 tonners. They were talking about a real serious diff. lock for 2001, maybe the axle was beefed for all that newfound horsepower too.
Supposedly there is underfloor storage in the Trailblazer. I would hope so because the rear floor height seemed high. I would guess there is a 4-6" space under the floor judging from the bottom of the floorpan underneath the truck and the inside height difference. Pretty cool for keeping the jumper cables and other contraband if you ask me.
I wasn't able to get too close because it was on a pedestal but the charming announcer said that the estimated mileage was over 21 mpg highway. Not bad.
The styling was a little chunky and Japanese for me but I'm not a vain one so I really don't care. I buy cars for their engines.
Interior looked like standard fare, sized between a Durango and the old Blazer. Probably a bit closer to the Durango in width and height, and the old Blazer in length.
Front suspension was not torsion bars. Looked like coil springs and a strut. Looked a lot like a Honda front. With the knuckle of the suspension about 1 inch from the top of the tire.
New 16 inch wheels housed some huge brakes. No more S10 braking woes I hope.
Pocahontas,
Edmunds.com/Host