4.3L Power!

-

ChargedDart75

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
1,936
Location
Somewhere in Northeast TN
FB_IMG_1607229697595.jpg

I couldn't help myself when I saw this lol
 
The 3.9 is worse actually. My Dad owned 3 S10 blazers, that's a fairly decent engine for the time, would take it over the 3.9 or the Ford 4.0 (either version)
 
The 3.9 is worse actually. My Dad owned 3 S10 blazers, that's a fairly decent engine for the time, would take it over the 3.9 or the Ford 4.0 (either version)
My personal preference is the 3.9. Having owned/worked on them all, I feel like the reliability and performance was far greater than either 4.3 or 4.0.
 
My personal preference is the 3.9. Having owned/worked on them all, I feel like the reliability and performance was far greater than either 4.3 or 4.0.

At least the 95 and 04 4.3's my dad had (the 91 being TBI) make 195hp and 260 lb-ft vs the 3.9's 175/225. So disagree wholeheartedly on performance. Every 3.9 I've run into was a total turd in the performance category. I remember a friend taking an 03 Dakota Crew Cab 4x4 3.9/auto to Milan Dragway and it ran a 19 second pass. The Blazer, the published times are 17.1ish for a 4x4 auto, not barn burner but a lot better. Weight should be fairly similar.

Reliability, I don't think either is too bad. More likely to lose a water pump on a 4.3 like any chevy small block but other than the lower intake gasket on the 95 (which was largely due to DexCool), they were all really good to us. The 04, I think in 12 years and 130k, my dad changed the water pump, belt, spark plugs, idler pulley and that was it, and he did quite a bit of towing. The 95 needed the CPI lines replaced at about 120k.
 
what ever happened to the AMC/Mopar 4.7? 310HP NET? Not too bad....
2008 Ram 1500 310 hp @ 5,650 rpm 329 lb-ft 3,950 rpm (at the wheels)

I remember reading a MoparAction mag article on it (2006 ish) and they said it was the new performance platform with performance parts in the works....yeah: like none?
 
what ever happened to the AMC/Mopar 4.7? 310HP NET? Not too bad....
2008 Ram 1500 310 hp @ 5,650 rpm 329 lb-ft 3,950 rpm (at the wheels)

I remember reading a MoparAction mag article on it (2006 ish) and they said it was the new performance platform with performance parts in the works....yeah: like none?
They were fairly decent if they were maintained and not overheated.
 
The 3.9 is worse actually. My Dad owned 3 S10 blazers, that's a fairly decent engine for the time, would take it over the 3.9 or the Ford 4.0 (either version)

Did any of those S10 Blazers have over 150k? I have never seen a high mileage 4.3 that didn't some like a freight train at startup. They are notorious for valve stem seals.
 
what ever happened to the AMC/Mopar 4.7? 310HP NET? Not too bad....
2008 Ram 1500 310 hp @ 5,650 rpm 329 lb-ft 3,950 rpm (at the wheels)

I remember reading a MoparAction mag article on it (2006 ish) and they said it was the new performance platform with performance parts in the works....yeah: like none?

Drove the first version of the 4.7L for a work truck. Not bad unloaded, but with the 3.55 gears struggled to stay in O/D with any kind of load or pulling a trailer. Admittingly, I usually pulled the trailer in drive regardless, but did forget to turn O/D off on occassion.
 
What about the 2.8! Lol. I had an s10 with a 2.8 and a 5 speed and that truck was freaking rock solid. I only used for hauling trash and dump runs, but I'll be dammed if not fired up every spring.
 
Did any of those S10 Blazers have over 150k? I have never seen a high mileage 4.3 that didn't some like a freight train at startup. They are notorious for valve stem seals.

Not ours, sold all of them in the 130k range. A friend of ours had over 200k on his 92 (original owner) and it didn't smoke. Have a friend with a 96 Vortec 350 Silverado with 280k on it (it is the original engine) and it doesn't smoke like a chimney either. Maybe older ones like 87-91 (the TBI ones) do that because I have seen the same on the TBI 350s.
 
AND NOW yet another annoying story from the old days. I don't remember the displacement, back in "sometime in the 80's" I started work in HVAC, for a VERY small HVAC/R outfit. One of the company trucks that migrated between the shop and the boss's daughter was an S10 with, ?? 120+K--150K on the clock. It used some oil, more on the highway, and you had to watch the stick.

One time his daughter had it for a couple weeks and the next thing ya know, HERE it is, in the shop. Boss told me to tear it down and see about fixing it

Recently "out" of the auto parts game, I told him "Likely way easier and cheaper to get a rebuilt or even wrecker used"

"Well tear it down anyway and see what you can find"

So later, here is the V6 on the bench, all torn down. I started to look it over, and had the thing torn clear down to bare block. I decided to see if "I could see" what the oil leak was all about, as I already knew it was the rear seal.

Looked in the block. THERE WAS NO SEAL, only a NICE CLEAN OILY GROOVE

Looked in the cap, THERE WAS NO SEAL only a NICE CLEAN OILY GROOVE

Looked at the crank THERE WAS NO WEAR AT ALL

That damn thing had come from the factory with NO seal, and when it was newer and had less blowby, I guess the PCV kept it "sucked up"
 
Not ours, sold all of them in the 130k range. A friend of ours had over 200k on his 92 (original owner) and it didn't smoke. Have a friend with a 96 Vortec 350 Silverado with 280k on it (it is the original engine) and it doesn't smoke like a chimney either. Maybe older ones like 87-91 (the TBI ones) do that because I have seen the same on the TBI 350s.

Yes, most all of the ones I am referring to were 88-95 throttle body motors. Ran ok but my god would fog you out at startup.
 
-
Back
Top