Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

Vortec4200(I-6) in Blazer discussion

Discussion in 'The Garage' started by K05Aggie, Jan 20, 2003.

  1. K05Aggie

    K05Aggie 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Posts:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    I'm not seriously considering doing this for a couple of years at least, but I've always been kind of partial to inline sixes because of their inherent balance. I was just thinking about the weight savings. Plus that engine is probably stronger than my 350. I'm sure it would be more efficient. The wiring would be a pain. I only have one question right now: Are the engine mounts the same as a V-8's? I want to know what yall think of this, even the occasional flame. Spread the knowledge.
     
  2. zcarczar

    zcarczar 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Apple Valley California
    I wouldnt think it would be worth it, the cost to power ratio wouldnt be very good at all and i dont think that engine has the balls to push a 5500 lbs lifted K5 down the road. Given the aftermarket support for the SBC i would say build the SBC and get one helluva nice engine when your done.
     
  3. Redfrog

    Redfrog 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Posts:
    753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    IL
    not to mention the fact that the steel cylinder sleeves have had a problem with "falling" out /forums/images/graemlins/eek.gifof the the blocks.
    They do run smooth though /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
     
  4. Sandman

    Sandman 3/4 ton status Author

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    5,653
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pocatello, ID
    I dont know if the 6 would be any lighter than the 350. The older ones were not. Not to sure about the newer ones though.
     
  5. chosen(1)

    chosen(1) 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Posts:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan
    I say if you can afford it, and do the fabrication work to make it work, it would be a good swap. It is all aluminum, so it is light, and it makes 275 hp and 275 lbs of torque. How many of our 350s make that? I don't think mine does.

    Tom
     
  6. Seventy4Blazer

    Seventy4Blazer 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Posts:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Escondido, CA
    i think it would be well worth it. the I-6 is a more tourquy motor from the get go. also weight, and power ratio is better than the stock V-8 your ride came with. motor mounts are way different. wires would be fun, but im sure you can buy a stand alone computer for them.

    it would be spendy, but if one had the money, say myself thats just what i would put in the wifes rig. my old I-6 was a hell of a tow rig.
    Grant
     
  7. HarryH3

    HarryH3 1 ton status Author

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Posts:
    10,384
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Georgetown, TX
    Go test drive a new Trail Blazer with that engine under the hood. The seat of the pants feel just doesn't match up with the claimed power numbers. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif A mild small block will make a lot more torque, which is what it takes to make these big beasts move.

    Also, take a close look at the bottom side of the Vortec I-6. The cast aluminum oil pan is actually a structural member of the engine and contains the lower main bearing caps. It hangs down so low that there's actually a passage though the oil pan for one of the axle shafts of the IFS to fit through. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif I'm thinking that could cause some interesting clearance problems with a solid axle front end.

    There's just no substitute for cubic liters /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif and it's a pretty big jump from 4.2 liters to 5.7 liters. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
     
  8. Twiz

    Twiz 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Posts:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Clearfield Ut.
    </font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
    not to mention the fact that the steel cylinder sleeves have had a problem with "falling" out of the the blocks.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Close,
    The problem is (was) that the boreing tool they used to fit the sleeves was wearing out quicker than they had anticipated. So, when the sleeve was fitted, it would get deformed, and wear. Eventualy, it would blow the pistons apart. This problem was not uniform, as they replaced the boreing tool intermitantly, though out production run. So, you might end up with one or two out of a lot of a 100 (or what-ever the exact numbers might be) This was also only in the begining of the 2001 model years, or there abouts.

    Other than that, those friggin engines are dang-near trouble free.
     
  9. Twiz

    Twiz 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Posts:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Clearfield Ut.
    </font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
    test drive a new Trail Blazer with that engine under the hood. The seat of the pants feel just doesn't match up with the claimed power numbers.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I would tend to agree. They just don't seem to have the same "git-up 'n go" like you would think.
    From what I've been hearing from some of the owners tho' is that the engine preforms the exact same, regardlass of the weight (towing performance). To some extent, much like a diesel, it feels the same.. loaded, unloaded, up-hill, down-hill, sitting in the drive-way, what-ever.

    They are also makeing a 4 cyl and (for some un-known resson) a 5 cyl in the same fasion as the 4.2.
     
  10. Redfrog

    Redfrog 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Posts:
    753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    IL
    is it the boring bar they use or just the insert? not that it really matters I'm just curious
     
  11. K05Aggie

    K05Aggie 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Posts:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Thanks for the replies, guys. I think I could handle the engine mounts. I never thought about it being too tall. And I'm not sure I like the idea of the oil pan being a structural member, but I did know about the axle shaft passing through it.
    I have ridden in one and I'll agree it didn't feel like 275hp, but I thought it might just be that it was so smooth. I wanted to compare some numbers but couldn't find any 0-60 or 1/4 mile times for a stock K5 or Jimmy.
     
  12. dubl_t

    dubl_t 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Posts:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    Yea, I think you're on the right track. You gotta ask yourselfwhat you really want though. For me, I-6 (turboed, not stirred) followed by a nv4500 backed by a 205 w/a doubler flowing into 4.88's wrapped around Detroits, pushing 36" pizza cutters. I've thought about this alot /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
     
  13. Corey 78K5

    Corey 78K5 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    13,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Humboldt County, CA
    You also have to remember on a lot of these new engines like the 4.2 Six is they say 275 hp but thats usualy at like 5500 rpm or there abouts. Like in my daily driver I have a 4.3 V6 with 200 hp at around 4800 rpm (I think) but I hardly ever get over 2500 rpm. Also with these new Trail Blazers all being auto's that would make a diffrence on how some people would feel about the power. Now slap a manual behind it and might be a lot better.
     
  14. HarryH3

    HarryH3 1 ton status Author

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Posts:
    10,384
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Georgetown, TX
    Yep. That's why horsepower numbers can often seem totally bogus. Some little 4-bangers can crank out 250 HP, because they wind 'em up to something like 7,500 RPM. But they might only make 150 lb/ft of torque. I want the TORQUE to kick in as soon as I mash the pedal! That's what I really dig about the 454. In stock trim they hit their massive torque peak by 1,600-1,800 RPM.
     
  15. Twiz

    Twiz 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Posts:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Clearfield Ut.
    </font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
    Some little 4-bangers can crank out 250 HP, because they wind 'em up to something like 7,500 RPM. But they might only make 150 lb/ft of torque.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Try 600 H.P. @ 9200 RPM 500 ft/lbs of torque at 7000 RPM.
    Out of the new G.M. Ecotec 2.2 L Four cyl. (145 h.p. stock)
    Thats all most 200 H.P. per cyl!
    Yowza!
    It's a factory backed effort.
    The block is 95% stock and destroked to 2.0L to meet NHRAs Compact Drag Raceing clases and reaches 22 PSI of boost from a single turbo charger.

    Why ?
    My guess is that G.M. has probably lost a lage portion of it's compact market share to the imports.
    So, Race 'em on Sunday and sell 'em on Monday.

    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Read about it here &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; It's pretty cool!
     
  16. HarryH3

    HarryH3 1 ton status Author

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Posts:
    10,384
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Georgetown, TX
    That's interesting, but we're talking about stuff that doesn't require the resources of GM's Skunk Works and a blank check from a really big bank account. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

    Even with all that boost, the torque peak still doesn't occur until 7,000 RPM. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif (I wonder where you have to buy gas to be able to run 22 pounds of boost?) /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
     
  17. TONYP

    TONYP 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    so cal
    Just bought the GMC Envoy, it's a 4300lbs car. The trans seems to slip through the gears as to keep the RPM’s up. I took it out and ran it hard...the gas pedal has a whole lot of travel, so unless you put it on the floor your not opening it up. It does get up a go for a 6, but doesn't have the torque of my 2000 Tahoe.
     
  18. Corey 78K5

    Corey 78K5 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    13,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Humboldt County, CA
    </font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
    It does get up a go for a 6, but doesn't have the torque of my 2000 Tahoe.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    Yeah the funny thing is all I heard was how torquey these engines were and how they have V8 power and then I see a new one the other day at the dealer with V8 badges on the front fender. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
     
  19. ZonkRat

    ZonkRat 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Lawrence County Tennessee
    The older sixes were about same weight as bigblock.Think I'd stick to SB.Might gain a little tourqe on bottom with six,but,V8 will run out better from 2000 RPMs up. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /forums/images/graemlins/truck.gif /forums/images/graemlins/eek.gif
     

Share This Page