GM Gives Official Ratings for EcoTec3 V-6

2014-4.3L V-6 EcoTec3-002 II

The new GM EcoTec3 4.3-liter V-6, the base engine for both the new 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and 2014 GMC Sierra 1500, now has official fuel economy and maximum payload and towing numbers, and they're pretty impressive.

Just last month we speculated about what the exact fuel economy numbers would be in a chart comparing all the makers of full-size pickup truck V-6s, and we were pretty close.

Silverado and Sierra 4x2s will offer an EPA rating of 18/24 mpg city/highway, making them just as good as the Ram 1500 with the new Pentastar and eight-speed transmission in the city and only 1 mpg less than the Ram on the highway.

In 4x4 configurations, the new Silverado and Sierra half-tons will get 17/22 mpg city/highway, the former being the best city number in the V-6 full-size pickup segment. Additionally, according to the the most updated spec sheets, maximum payload capacity for either pickup will be 2,108 pounds, and maximum towing capacity will be 7,200 — both class leading when equipped with a V-6.

We're hoping to get a pair of identically equipped Chevy or GMC V-6 pickups — one with a trailer, one without — at some point down the road so we can repeat the same long-distance routes and tests we've done with both the Ford F-150 EcoBoost and Ram 1500 Pentastar. Stay tuned.



So basically Ram still is the MPG king and will further solidly it's throne with the 30 MPG EcoDiesel coming this fall; BRING IT ON!!!

I thought the new 5.3 was rated 23 mpg highway in a 4x2.

I can get 22mpg all day at 60mph in my 07 Silverado ext cab 4x4. But it does have a cat back, cold air intake, and I really think the first owner chipped it.

If the 4.3 goes out in our old Chevy van I hope we can buy this new engine as a crate motor.

A real truck motor with a 6 speed, when GM brings the 8 speed it will be 26-27 on the highway. Ford must be embarassed at how bad their motor line up is.

Ecoboost, unreliable POS

5.0 Glorified Mustang engine with a truck cam, still boot stomped by an OHV engine

Ford 6.2, overweight gas hog

This engine looks to be fantastic. I hope that it finds its way into the canyon/colorado, where it should *really* shine. If GM pulls that the Tacoma is going to lose a *lot* of sales.

Get used to the theme: "Class competitive"

GM aimed low and didn't miss...

So did chevy revert back to 1986 engineering principles here? Did they forget how to engineer a serpentine belt system for this motor?

P.S. All of us normal people think you fan boys sound retarded. Turn the caps lck off and back away from the keyboard please.

The 8 speed is dead. Get off that talking point.

Ford and GM are developing a 9 and 10 speed as reported by PUTC. The 10 speed will be used in trucks.

How did Ford get into this discussion? Oh wait it's just the damn trolls again.

@Mr Obvious or MichiganBob You are an idiot. NUFF said! The ECOBOOST is 10X the engine that GM's 5.3L or the "EgoTech" 4.3L could ever hope to be. Goverment Motors needs a R&D department instead of using 40 year old technology. Get with the modern day times. And people wonder why they went bankrupt. Let me tell you my F-150 with it's 5.0L "mustang" motor will smoke a comparably equipped Chevy! It is 100% stock and does 0-60 in the 6 second range. So before you spew off useless and unfounded facts. Start reading up books on car knowledge, if you can............

So ZF's 8hp45 is what gives Chrysler-Fiat a slight edge in highway MPG.

With the fuel economy of full-size trucks with V-6s it is easy to see why the mid-size segment is dying.

10 or 20 speed transmission don't help for hwy mpg. They only improve city mpg if you have a very light foot.

Does anyone here realize that this 4.3 barely beats the 5.3 in 4wd MPG 17/22-16/22? Who would want this over the 5.3 or a Ram for that matter that offers 15/21 from the 395 HP and 410 lb-ft of torque HEMI V8?

@Mr Obvious

5.0 Boot Stomped? From the recent reviews on this site..

2014 5.3 0-60 in 7.5 sec, 18.1sec w/ 8500#
2011 5.0 0-60 in 7.1 sec, 16.5 sec w/ 9000#

Looks like the bowtie was boot stomped in this bench race.

What happened to the class leading 25+ mpg that bvonscott was talking about?


Your 5.7L Hemi is a good engine in a very good looking truck with a lot of nice features but no not everybody wants it or is jealous of it. When this gets paired to an 8-speed or better it will achieve better mpg than your HFE V6 with better torque performance. It will also be a little cheaper than the 5.3L and will serve some low end work truck buyers and a lot fleet sales very well which GM has more of than Ram making this very important to GM.

This is about what I had expected. GM will need some taller gears on the top end to boost the highway ratings any further (or go more aero). This is one of two advantages Ram has with the 8 speed. The other is the very low first gear which lets someone tow a heavy load with a lower rear-end gearing since more torque is put to the ground.

With GM's boost in lower end torque they should be able to do well with taller gearing in OD. I bet with the identical ZF 8-speed they'd be able to get 26 mpgs since the motor would likely be turning 200 rpm lower.

I know someone already mentioned the 10 speeds they are developing with Ford but those are likely to be next gen tranny's not for the newly released truck. GM has an 8 speed auto about 98% complete and they plan on using it in the Vette so I'd imagine that it would be natural to put it into the trucks to spread costs. Caddy will probably also get this 8-speed.

I expect we see the 8-speed in next year's models (2015's) or maybe a smidge longer and they can call it a 2015.5. the bump in torque multiplication should be able to allow GM to increase tow ratings to keep up with Ford's magic spring dust that is inevitable :)

I'm sorry but GM is just using some new technology on some very old engines! I'm not impressed at all. I'll keep my 2008 F-150 Harley Davidson Crew Cab Thank You!

Man, GM just keeps looking more and more like they just can't quite catch up, they get so close but never get to the leading point. It doesn't matter what GM might do down the road, if they can't cath up to the trucks that have already been there, and done that, what makes anyone think they will do better in the future, just think when the new 10 speeds come out, there will already be new Fords and new Rams, and everyone will still be talking about GM's old 6 year technology trying to still cath up in the "future".

In all honesty, I was expecting more horsepower, considering the 4.3L has about 3/4L more displacement than the competitors, as well as direct injection.

Just adding direct injection to Ford's 3.7L and RAM's 3.6L would increase the horsepower, torque, and fuel economy of those engines considerably.

Torque usually increases by about 7-10% with direct injection, which would give the other engines a similar peak torque number (without the horsepower disadvantage).

24 mpg is a little low for a new engine.

@Grnzel1 that ford has 3.73s vs 3.42s. The 5.3 boot stomps that ford trash all day long with better mpgs to boot.

I was about to prove a point to AD but Paul810 already did. The 8 speed is not a crutch for the Pentastar; it's a fact of what Is offered by Ram just like GM offers direct injection AND cyclinder deactivation on the 4.3 yet still produces less HP and achieves less fuel economy. Throw in direct injection and cylinder deactivation on the Pentastar and we're looking at roughly 345 HP and 320 lb-ft of torque along with 21/28 MPG.

I was expecting more out of the 4.3 too. Time for another shootout that everyone will BMW over the results.

BMW = Bitch...Moan...Whine

The fact of the matter is Ram, Ford, and Chevy are currently building great trucks and are neck and neck with one another. The statistical differences between each are not great enough to sway any buyer; they will buy based on what their heart is set on. Toyota and Nissan are a whole nother story. You'd be nuts to buy a Tundra or Titan over a current Ram, F-150, or Silerado/Sierra. All 4 of those trucks are way better in every aspect and by a very wide margin; enough to even sway a brand loyalist. Kudos to the domestic pickups for dominating the pickup market!

You cannot throw in cylinder deactivation on the Pentastar as it is to expensive to put a DOHC which why only Mercedes and Audi do it. Also direct injection is another complex expense to add on top of the fact that DOHC cost more and are more complex than OHV engines to start with. So those are to expenses that Ram 1500 may or may not get to begin with. The more complex something is the more expensive something is and the less they warranty it as you may have noticed OHV engines always have a longer warranty than DOHC engines. So despite not having it's 8-speed yet and being bigger than your smaller DOHC Pentastar the new 4.3L is 1mpg hwy behind your HFE model which already has its 8-speed. So to sum it up the future 8-speed 4.3L buyer will get better peak torque (which is the number for trucks), better fuel economy, and less complex which gives a better warranty= lowest cost of ownership making this truck perfect for low end work truck buyers and fleet truck buyers than Ford and Ram with the DOHC V6. Some people like the ones I listed will gladly take the lost of horsepower for the advantages and probably why GM didn't use the LFX V6 engine. It is not as simple as DOHC better than OHV or OHV better than DOHC you have to look at the application it is going into. I would take the ford 3.7L and Chrysler 3.6L in a car but not this application.


Is that the same guesstimate you dodge boys gave about the hemi and the 8 spd? You were throwing out 25 hwy #'s and reality was 21. 345 LOL

@ Ford #2

Sounds like your 5.0 isn't stomping a 5.3 anytime soon...

"Latest issue of 'Car and Driver' (you can read it online).

Tested-2014 Silverado LTZ Crew Cab 4WD 5.3 engine.

0-60=6.7 seconds. 1/4 mile=15.3 seconds. 178 foot stop in 70 feet (4 feet shorter than 2013 Taurus SEL AWD)."

Also those towing #'s were with a 3.73 and surprise surprise a towing package which the GM truck #'s you gave did not have...

Alll this compare this versus that won't matter until all trucks have the same transmission (8spds) and direct injection if you want to magazine race. Sure 24 hwy isn't good some say, wait until it has an 8 speed soon. No matter which way tou slice it GM brought a truck motor and the others didn't How do you argue that point???

I think this GM is better than the Ram, especially for a business operator.

Before people complain that its not a V8 with giga power - we have International sand trucks (dump trucks) with 345 gas V8s in the 70s and they used to carry 28 000lbs of sand in the back.

So pretty much any engine with the correct drivetrain can move weight.

This GM is a usable truck for work, it can carry and tow far more than the Fiat/Ram.

If these figures are sincere, then GM might have a very competitive truck and with only 6 gears.

I remember someone a year ago or so asking if it is necessary to have so many gears.

Yes, your midsizers might produce those poor FE figures. The globals are able to do more work than this GM and still get 30mpg average, not highway FE.

Like I have stated maybe some good competition will get Detroit moving quicker in producing more efficient trucks.

Diesel is the answer.

I don't think the 4.3L engine is a bad engine, it just not great. Both engines, 4.3 and 5.3 run on V-4 mode when cruising that is why not much different.


Al, Your global talking points have been shot down before.

Your globals do not do more work, and 30 mpg is questionable at best as it is not rated under the EPA system.

You made a comment on midsizers. The truth is we are averaging 30mpg and moving more weight around.

I'm not as you would like to describe pro midsizer, just pointing out facts. I'm more pro diesel than the size of the truck.

I would love to see your 1/2 ton trucks with diesels, then you guys will realise their benefits, especially off roading, working and commuting.

Who shot me down? DenverSpin? TRD X4 Tom? You? Get real. You will not be able to produce data to show as you are inferring that your trucks get better FE than a diesel global. If that is the case who is trying shot someone, maybe your just a troll, or just trying to shot me in the ass, and not with a bullet.

I just drove back from Darwin yesterday at 110kmph and on my trip computer averaged 7.5km per 100km FE. Get on the net and work that one out.

@ Tyler

Look back at CD's review of the 2011 5.0 F150 times.. (4x4 XLT Supercrew)

0-60 in 6.7 - equal to the 5.3
1/4 mile in 15.1 - .2 better than the 5.3 and the 5.0 trapped at 93mph vs 92 for the Chevy...

I'd argue they were dead even with the 5.0 perhaps a slight advantage in a faster trap speed.

I'm just glad the 4.3 is a real truck motor. More torque at a lower rpm is more important than gaining 1 or 2 MPG by stuffing a car motor in a truck.


@ Grnzel1
You know, you guys try and claim these are trucks and yet you use 0-60 times and 1/4 mile runs to make claims that one truck is better than the other.

Isn't a truck about moving weight?

A truck is needed to move loads, tow etc. How long will a truck last if you are driving to the figures you are using to try and prove which truck is the best.

When you get the chance, load a truck and use it as a truck and you will soon find out it is more than how fast it can go.

Driving under load is what a truck is all about.

Do you even have a licence?

@AD, I don't believe an OHV motor with DI and cylinder deactivation is more reliable or less complex than an OHC without either. All the more so when you're comparing a brand new motor against one with three years of field testing.

Warranty length is marketing but if you want to play that game then Hyundai has the longest powertrain warranty in the industry and they don't sell OHV motors.

Just wait for the diesel ram this fall to stomp the competition!!!

Ditroit diesel makes an ohc inline 6 diesel thats lasts well over 1 million miles so ohc is pretty good too.

The 30 mpg is a misnomer because the globals have at least 26 mpg and at best 30 mpg and use magic spring dust for the payload/towing. Take off a few mpgs using our EPA requirements and ratings.

Our full-size trucks get 25 mpg, so not much difference, and our full-sizes are more capable.

Thanks for playing.

@Big Al

I agree with your analysis of what trucks are for. These are not sports cars. Who's fastest, etc really misses the point. I get it.

I was responding to a post about a "stomping"

In fact one of my favorite motors was the Ford 300 straight six. In the States Ford even put them in F250s! A lowly sixxer in a pure work truck.

Yes I have a license :)

@ Dan
I didn't say without either I said a OHV with cylinder deactivation and DI is cheaper than a DOHC with those things and that's why only Audi and Mercedes DOHC's have it. If you take a OHV and DOHC without those things the OHV is cheaper which is why it is easier to add those things to a OHV. As for the warranty marketing is part of it but your kidding yourself if you think that someone would warranty something more complex and expensive the same as something less complex and less expensive aka getting something for free. I do agree with you and believe in letting the reworked 4.3L prove it self just remember OHV less moving parts and less moving parts equals better reliability rating. The main reasons why companies like Toyota and GM don't like active air suspension, grille shutters, active air dam or wheel shutters on their trucks. When people say GM didn't go far enough on the new trucks look at the Ford Atlas and the new Ram 1500 I say to people GM went as far as they are comfortable going and Toyota is the one who didn't go far enough but that is probably due to the bean counters.

I am not against DOHC engines I just think some things work better in certain applications and you also have to consider cost. GM had 2 choices rework the 4.3L V6 or a slightly detuned version of the LFX V6 and they must have had reasons for going with the 4.3L V6. I am not against OHC engines I have a Supercharged 5.7L iforce that I would not trade for any engine in a 2014 pickup.

I was honestly expecting a better mpg rating for the hwy at least. I'm sorry Chevy is way overrated as usual sorry boys better get shoot for more mpgs come 2015 & 2016 thats not gonna cut it! ecodiesel & nano v6's are just around the corner this is another GMT900 scenario. chevy should have been way ahead of the competition 20/26 should be what they were rated this truck will become dated quickly in a competitive auto market such as this. they should have been more liberal with their designs & took more risks big mistake so far.

It always makes me laugh how people say there are always so many fewer moving parts in an OHC engine vs an OHV engine.

There actually isn't as huge a difference as most people think.

Sure, in the V6 you gain 3 extra camshafts, 12 more valves, and 12 more lifters (actually DAMBs). But you remove 12 pushrods and 12 rockers.

A 2v SOHC V8, like Ford's 6.2L, actually has less moving parts than a comparable OHV V8.

If you type in all caps to make a point I automatically assume you are a douche bag.

BigAl: it is not Detroit that will not let U.S. have diesels in our 1/2tons but the E P A! you keep forgetting that! and if we were able too, we would have a GM 4.5 Duramax, and any of the others would have diesels by now, but for all the EPA requirements involved, take a look at any aftermarket Ram diesels here, there are some running around with over 6oohp and still getting 28mpg when used for reg cruising, same with the Duramax, and maybe a few Powerstrokes, in a full size truck! and able to pull a lot a weight! go outside, raise your flag and sing your national anthem to get it out of your system, then come back here, and stop putting U.S. down, will ya?

How did Ford get into this discussion? Oh wait it's just the damn trolls again.
Posted by: Frank | Jun 19, 2013 11:17:43 AM

Got that right. You just threw your 2 cents in.

Check out the JD Powers ratings out today. Like I have said before, GM trucks outlast the competition and cost less to own. You Ford and Dodge boys need another hobby besides working on your junk pickups every weekend.

When I was a kid in the States my father had a 63 Ford Galaxy with a 300 six in it.

They are truck engines, but probably by todays standards, not as powerful or torquey, but they got the job done.

I'm really not putting down the US, but some of the foolish comments on this site. If people want to make remarks, then so be it.

What is driving your EPA and CAFE is what I've been whining about for a longtime.

It used to be Detroit and the UAW that would pressure the government. Now, it is the UAW, some greenies and the government. Fiat/Chrysler and Ford would love to see your design and EPA match the rest of us.

Like I've said I would love to see the F-150 with the 3.2 diesel, the Ram will eventually have the VM diesel and Chev I don't know about.

The pickup of the future will be I think the Nissan Titan believe it or not.

When it comes out with the little ISF Cummins that will shake up the market with a real viable alternative.

The Cummins will not need any urea, they have found a solution.

I would love to see some information on the progress of the Titan and the Cummins.

The comments to this entry are closed.