Something I'm Still Trying to Figure Out...

"Logansteno: Bought a VW?" (logansteno)
12/15/2014 at 13:51 • Filed to: None

Why GM cut a cylinder off the Atlas before the put it in the Colorado, Canyon, and H3? Why make a second motor when you already had one great engine that is almost the same?

The I6 from the Trailblazer would've been perfect in the H3 rather than I5 that was somewhat underpowered for the weight of the truck. I mean, the 3.5 (2006) or 3.7 (2007+) I5 still have more power than my 4.3 V6 and moves about the same weight, but the I6 would've been even better and would've got it moving to 60 in under 10 seconds.

The I6 would've worked better in the Colorado and Canyon because it would've better filled the gap between the base I4 and top-trim V8. As it stood the I5 was closer to the I4 in terms of performance, while the V8 was light-years ahead. I'm sure the I6 would've increasing towing capacity as well.

While a I5 was unique and cool (who all was making I5s when these trucks were made, VW and Volvo?) it didn't really have the power and performance to back up the vehicles that it was in as well as the Atlas I6 would've. There's only one reason I can think of as to why GM didn't use the I6 and that would be packaging. Either it didn't fit under the hood or it would've been hilariously cramped and impossible to work on.

Either way, it doesn't really matter now. The engine line was discontinued when GM killed the Trailblazer/Envoy and first-gen Canyon/Colorado. Which is a shame honestly, because I bet an updated I6 could've found its way into the new Canyon/Colorado without issues. Engine bay permitting.

(Note: This is only boggling my mind lately because I am looking at all three vehicles the I5 saw its way into.)

DISCUSSION (28)

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 13:54

Would an I6 have fit? That's kind of why V6s exist at all.

Blake Noble > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 13:55

You nailed the reason why it wasn't used in the GMT345/GMT355 vehicles: packaging.

Now personally, I think GM screwed up not using the Atlas I-6 in the base model GMT900 trucks.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
12/15/2014 at 13:56

That's be the only issue I'd see. I haven't looked under the hood of a new Canyonrado, so I haven't the slightest how big the engine bay is.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Blake Noble
12/15/2014 at 13:57

That would've been so much better than the hilariously old and underpowered 4.3.

But, that would've also probably taken away from sales of the 5.3.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 13:57

They probably had a meeting, decided that 5-cylinders used less fuel than 6 and called it good.

whoarder is tellurium > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
12/15/2014 at 13:58

Simply put: nope. They corrected all this in the new Colorado/Canyon

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
12/15/2014 at 13:59

Potentially, but I think in the H3 the I6 would've been more efficient since it didn't have to work as hard as the I5 did.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
12/15/2014 at 14:00

No, they held a meeting, decided that 5-cylinders used less fuel, then called the meeting. There may not have ever been an actual decision to build the engine.

Blake Noble > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 14:02

Eh, maybe in GM's mind it could have. But I doubt it. Some full-sized truck buyers would never own one with anything less than 8 cylinders.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Blake Noble
12/15/2014 at 14:04

This is true. I know a few people who scoff at the idea of a truck with less than 8 cylinders. I am not one of these people but that's their thing. I'd totally drive a new Silverado with the updated 4.3 that actually makes livable power for the size of the truck.

crown victor victoria > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 14:11

Such was the logic of Old GM, I suppose.

Or it was what they could do at the time to make some CAFE headway. Versus a 4 cyl, I still think it had its advantages. I'm sure it would tow better, for one thing, which is important considering the packaging. Yeah the 4 cyl would have moved the H3 down the road but probably not much beyond that, and using the 4.3 might not have given them the MPG performance they wanted/needed.

BigBlock440 > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 14:19

all the power of the 4, fuel economy of the 6

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > crown victor victoria
12/15/2014 at 14:23

I'm not even sure if the H3 would move with a 4-cylinder. The 4.3 might've worked better just due to the sole fact that it has more torque down low. But, then it has less horsepower. Efficiency might come out even, but I dunno what the 4.3 got mileage wise.

Blake Noble > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 14:23

Now here's something I don't understand: Why does the new Colorado have the 3.6L V6 instead of the new EcoTec3 4.3 V6?

I'd bet there are millions of stubborn 4.3 Vortec S10 pickup owners who'd really go apeshit over the Colorado if it had the EcoTec 4.3.

DoYouEvenShift > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 14:23

I love the atlas.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Blake Noble
12/15/2014 at 14:26

Something about GM wanted the new Colorado to be more car-like and kinder to people coming from cars and crossovers, which seem to be their main target.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > DoYouEvenShift
12/15/2014 at 14:28

I've never driven a atlas powered vehicle, but it really was innovative at the time it existed. At least compared to a lot of GM's other V6 engines.

DoYouEvenShift > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 14:38

I love the 4.2, the 5 cylinders I'm not really a fan of. But your right. It is tons better than the old gen 1 SBC based 4.3, they dragged that thing on for waaay too long.

Nobi > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 14:42

Because it worked soooo well when they sliced 2 cylinders out of the 350 and the 4.3 V6 came out. Good idea, bad execution. Wasn't the base 4 cylinder in the Colorado/Canyon a 4 cylinder variant of the already sliced up 5 cylinder? For a company that was pushing their "it's the small block of the '00's!" ecotec 4 cylinder, they really hated using it where it made sense.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 14:45

Because all them fancy Yuropeeyun cars have dem fancy I5 engines?

I honestly have no idea.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Nobi
12/15/2014 at 14:46

The 4.3 actually worked rather well at the time for a basic truck engine like it was used for, though I may be biased because I drive a vehicle with one.

I don't think the Ecotec would've work in a truck period. It was still a young engine platform and really didn't make a lot of power and certainly not a lot of torque. The 2.9(?) I4 in the Colorado was much more fit at the time.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > sm70- why not Duesenberg?
12/15/2014 at 14:48

And them fancy Yuropeeyun trucks use diesel. Which made so much sense GM, Ford, and Dodge couldn't fathom at the time.

crown victor victoria > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 14:55

I guess it's one of those questions we'll never get an answer to. But you know someone out there has a 4.3 swapped into something on that platform.

Nobi > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 14:58

The 4.3 wasn't a bad engine when it came out, my first vehicle was an '85 GMC Sierra with a Quadrajetted 4.3. Its "updates" weren't done so well though. The "spider" leaks like mad in the S-10/Sonoma/Jimmy/Blazer, and it was very underpowered for what it was. GM just kind of gave up on it and bandaided it along until they mercifully killed it off only just recently. Far as the Ecotec goes, GM showed with the Cobalt TC/SS and Sky Redline/Solstice GXP that it could be tuned up (albeit with a turbo, but still, imagine how fun a turbo 4 in a RWD 5/6 speed Colorado would be) and make very good, liveable, reliable power without sacrificing economy. If I remember correctly, the Sky Redline got better mileage ratings than the base Sky.

mazda616 > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 15:19

I always thought it was just because GM is GM and they do what they want regardless of whether or not it makes sense. :)

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 15:55

And also the TT 4.2 I6 they were doing for the Trailblazer SS in the Canyon. Syclone anyone?

briannutter1 > Logansteno: Bought a VW?
12/15/2014 at 15:55

cause some people think I-5's sound awesomer than a 4 or 6.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > mazda616
12/15/2014 at 17:34

Kinja'd!!!

Well when you make this nothing needs to make sense!