Turbo Diesel Crew Cab S-10???

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:31 pm

Check this out...

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/761196

Post by **HenryJ** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:41 pm

Yes. The South American market has had the Isuzu engine for quite a while. Same goes for the crew cab in that market.
We are the last to get this stuff. I doubt that you will see the diesels in the small trucks here anytime soon though.

Wasn't the LUV the last Chevrolet compact truck to get a diesel engine?

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:23 pm

I think your right! My assumption would be that the turbo motor would never meet US emmissions standards. That's too bad.

Blaze One · Post by **Blaze One** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:41 pm

Every time someone posts up a thread about the Izuzu/s10 from overseas , I just get really mad a GM for not making that version available to the NA market .
I wonder how much a diesel engine swap would cost ?
Seems it fits nicely in the engine bay .
I like that front end alot too .

BobbleSmitty · Post by **BobbleSmitty** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:53 pm

I love it!! I wish they could ship some of those North

20Blazer00 · Post by **20Blazer00** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:44 pm

HenryJ wrote:Yes. The South American market has had the Isuzu engine for quite a while. Same goes for the crew cab in that market.
We are the last to get this stuff. I doubt that you will see the diesels in the small trucks here anytime soon though.

Wasn't the LUV the last Chevrolet compact truck to get a diesel engine?

If they did then GM would have a sales dilemma on its hands, what to do with all the Tahoe's, Suburban's and Hummer's that they have waiting to be sold. With Gas/Diesel prices at close to record levels in the U.S. that would mean that GM bought the farm on its philosophy of an SUV in every driveway...If the folks at GM had a clue as to what the public wanted they would not be having to close/sell production facilities to make a profit.

I think that truck would be a sales success to the small truck market today if they could get it emissions legal. But then how do they explain the fact that the trucking industry uses the same technology and has cleaner emissions because they are refining lower sulfur diesel engines.

And here is a factoid the first cars ever invented ran on a version of diesel called kerosene. They also were able to run on other types of fuel.

Since GM has reduced its investment in ISUZU MOTORS they stopped buying their engines for the N/A market... And since they have an interest in the company does the Hombre come with a diesel option??? Probably not since it might hurt GM Sales...

bwenny247 · Post by **bwenny247** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:20 pm

pretty sweet, looks like it gets used......

crew cab sonoma · Post by **crew cab sonoma** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:26 am

i take it the south american models dont have airbags? notice the dash...
both the steering wheel, and the passengerside storage compartment where the airbag would normally be...

Post by **Walt** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:03 am

Not real crazy about the front end, but it'd be nice to have the motor. That diesel is just begging for bigger tires and a lift

rick · Post by **rick** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:59 am

If you want to see the trucks for sale go to Ebay, then go to the bottom of page and click brazil. In the search bar (buscar) near the top of the page type in Dupla or Chevrolet S-10. I believe Dupla brings up more of them for sale. Or follow this link http://www.mercadolivre.com.br/home_visitor.html

Blaze One · Post by **Blaze One** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Although the diesel would be great , I must say that the 4.3 v6 is a pretty good engine too . A little bit bad on gas , but tough .
Now if only the front end/transfer case was as reliable.

Imagine if there was a SFA S10 in production overseas ! then we would be really pissed off .

Post by **Walt** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:09 pm

I'm not really crazy about the 4.3. It's decent, but could be better IMO.

Blaze One · Post by **Blaze One** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:07 pm

Oh I agree it could be better too . Would be nice if it was easier to work on , got better mpg .
But it is a time tested success . Has been used for many many years with a relatively good reputation . It is basically a Small Block Chevy V8 with 2 less cylinders . The internals are strong too . many people are running superchargers/ turbos or even nitros 50 shots with no problems .

The other parts on the truck however . I can't say the same .

Post by **Walt** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:25 pm

I wouldn't mind the gas mileage if the power made up for it. I know this isn't a good comparison, but one time I raced my X-cab Sonoma (probably had about 10K miles on it), bone stock w/ 3.73's, 4.3, auto tranny, stock tires. My opponent was a stock 2001(?) Nissan Frontier DesertRunner 2wd. He had a smaller V-6 than I, and pretty much the same specs except for larger tires (maybe 30's or 31's, I dunno). He beat me off the line, then at about 40mph I started to gain on him barely, then at 60 or so he started pulling away again until I hit 98mph.

Kinda made me mad that my bigger infamous V-6 "Vortec" got pwned by the Nissan V-6. I don't know to know much about engines, but it seems like the 4.3 could deliver more power considering how large of a 6 cylinder it is.

Blaze One · Post by **Blaze One** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:12 pm

that is true , the 4.3 v6 is not a effecient engine at all . It has the displacment close to some V8's and not the power .
i don't know much about the nissan/toyota v6's but generally they will be a better engine . Not to say that the GM 4.3V6 is Bad , but it could be better , I agree . But it could be much worse . Atleast they got rid of the 2.8L v6 !
But since we are getting off topic - anyone know what kinda milleage that Turbo Diesel gets ?

bwenny247 · Post by **bwenny247** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:30 pm

i always thought of the 4.3L as a "grunt" motor, good low end torque with lacking horsepower to match the torque numbers. i think the more emphasis on low end power yields the bad gas millage.

if it was balanced more like 250 horse and 250 ft lbs of torque that still got 22-23 MPG then i could justify the 4.3L in a truck. but when my buddy's 6.0L HD can put up way more power and still get the same millage i gotta scratch my head GM

rick · Post by **rick** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:15 pm

3.73 gears also don't help. They make the engine run at a high rpm. The 90 v-6's are like the old 350's you could dump sand in the crank case and they will still run.

crew cab sonoma · Post by **crew cab sonoma** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:00 am

ive always viewed both the Chevy and Buick 90 deg. V6`s as flawed and compromised designs.... both were basically "sawed off" V8`s... it was just a quick and cheap way to get a smaller engine in the aftermath of the "energy crisis" of the 70`s... while both are reliable engines, they still have their quirks.
they both ended up needing balance shafts to compensate for their inherent shakiness, due to their 90 deg. layout. but the balance shaft still doesent comepletely solve their shaky nature, and adds it own "rattling" noise to the engines.

when Chevy developed the 2.8L 60 deg. V6, they should have also developed a much larger version of it to replace the Chevy and Buick 3.8 and 4.3 V6`s....
it would have saved GM tons of money and problems over the long run......
it would have saved them two other engine lines, no balance shafts, and in the case of the 4.3, fewer cyl. head bolts as well...

crew cab sonoma · Post by **crew cab sonoma** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:19 am

hmmm that diesel has 3 vales/cyl...
it looks like it still has the older style, mechanical injection system on it.

i doubt it has as much power per liter, and is alot louder than modern domestic diesel engines are...

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:39 am

The 4.3's can be built to make some good power. I have seen several 300 hp 4.3 build ups, but I can guarantee they won't pass any sort of emission testing.

The biggest problem with the 4.3 in our trucks is the power to weight ratio. For example, my SS weighs 4200-4300 lbs (100-200 lbs more than my CC) and has a 400 hp V-8, 3.42 gears, same 4l60E transmission, and custom PCM tuning. I never get less than 20 mpg, and sometimes I get as high as 26 mpg.

My CC gets 16-18 mpg all the time which is nowhere near as good as my SS. I firmly believe that if the CC had an LS1 V-8 the gas mileage would definitely get better and the extra power would be nice also. Some say that supercharging the 4.3 is the way to go, however the extra power will certainly result in lower gas mileage.

I personally think the biggest problem with the 4.3 is the restrictive cylinder heads and cam choice. These engines lose power rapidly above 4000 rpm due to the engine being choked. A good port and polish on the heads combined with a slightly more aggressive cam and custom PCM tuning should get you at least 240 hp and 280 ft lbs of torque.

Steve

gocntry · Post by **gocntry** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:08 am

Killian96SS wrote:The 4.3's can be built to make some good power. I have seen several 300 hp 4.3 build ups, but I can guarantee they won't pass any sort of emission testing.

How About 569 horsepower at 7200 rpm & 451 lbs-ft of torque at 6000 rpm??

This Is From 1995

GM Parts Direct Sells The Heads They Talk About In The Article For $1250.00, The Block Is Only $1950.00

2kwik4u · Post by **2kwik4u** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:00 am

The heads are actually remarkable good....However you are spot on with the cam. A good cam (like the 270AHR from Comp) will liven the motor up considerably.

Also the PCM tuning leaves ALOT on the table. Guys have picked up over .500 in the 1/4 by simply removing torque management. GM was covering for poor transmission design, by limiting power during a shift.

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:34 am

gocntry wrote:How About 569 horsepower at 7200 rpm & 451 lbs-ft of torque at 6000 rpm??

Not street legal, but the power is amazing!

2kwik4u wrote:The heads are actually remarkable good....

The Vortec combustion chambers have a nice design, but the intake and exhaust port sizing is why the 4.3 can't breathe well above 4000 rpm. Well that and the weak stock cam.

The 2000 rpm stall converter doesn't help either. When you really think about it the stock 4.3 is only making good power within a 2000 rpm range which really sucks and limits the motors true abilities.

I'm not sure why GM added so much torque management to our trucks.

It would seem they did it because of the 4l60E's weak points, however the stock 4.3 is nowhere near powerful enough to cause any damage to our trannies. I beat the hell out the tranny in my SS and it's still working great after 55k miles. Ideally I would like to remove the torque management and also install a Transgo shift kit.

Steve

2kwik4u · Post by **2kwik4u** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:17 am

killian96ss wrote:Ideally I would like to remove the torque management and also install a Transgo shift kit.

Steve

Thats the "magic" recipe so to speak. I'm also not sure why they pull that much power on shift.

I suppose I'm used to looking at the ports from an early 4.3 to now. The vortecs stock are better than a full port/polish/valve job on the older LB4 heads.....I suppose they are not as good as possible, but they are leaps from older style (like Sy/Ty, and TBI motors). I suppose it's my frame of reference.

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:39 pm

How would you go about removing the torque management from the PCM? And what could be done to the stock Vortec heads, to maximize their potential?

chumley · Post by **chumley** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:38 am

Back to the subject, I wouldn't mind having the option of a turbo diesel in the big Blazer!

border man · Post by **border man** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:01 am

chumley wrote:Back to the subject, I wouldn't mind having the option of a turbo diesel in the big Blazer!

Big Blazer??? as in K5??
They are available as surplus CUCVs from the military.. We just got a bunch of them here at work. They are '79 models geared very low

.

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:51 am

Muslhed wrote:How would you go about removing the torque management from the PCM? And what could be done to the stock Vortec heads, to maximize their potential?

To remove the torque management you would need your own tuning software like EFI Live or you could send your PCM out to be tuned by someone like PCM4less.com.

As far as the Vortec heads, I wouldn't do anything to the combustion chambers, however a good port/polish on the intake and exhaust runners would help raise the CFM rating. If you really wanted to go all out you could install larger valves and also upgrade to 1.6 RR's, but you would need custom tuning to avoid problems. If you do step up to the 1.6 RR's you will most likely need different valve springs to avoid valve float.

Steve

daevans315 · Post by **daevans315** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:18 am

killian96ss wrote: Ideally I would like to remove the torque management and also install a Transgo shift kit.

Steve

On my 97 s-10 I have the transgo shift kit and I don’t think it ever had torque management installed. The 1st to 2nd shift unloads the right front (it won’t lift it … yet) and sets the rear end out a few inches with the 255 - 45 17's, 3.73's and a torsen possi'. Its been doing that since I put the shift kit in at about 55,000. When I auto-cross it its running 245-45-16 autocross race slicks. It won't pop slicks loose(treadware rating of 60) unless I’m in a corner but it pulls a lot of weight off the front end for a second or so. With a light tank of gas it is actually difficult to shift 1st to 2nd without barking the tires.

On an autocross weekend it will make that shift at WOT a few dozen times. I really don't think we have to worry about the mechanics of the tranny with our 200hp. At least not on the low half of the transmissions. Now 3rd gear and OD may be different story, but I don't see those much on the autocross track.

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:42 am

I know this is a bit

daevans315, how many washers are you using in the 1-2 accumulator? Here is some good info on the Transgo accumulator washers from the Impala SS forum.

Steve

daevans315 · Post by **daevans315** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:55 am

killian96ss wrote:I know this is a bit

daevans315, how many washers are you using in the 1-2 accumulator? Here is some good info on the Transgo accumulator washers from the Impala SS forum.

Steve

That was 5 years and 70,000 miles ago. I honestly don't remember. From reading the article I would say it behaves like I have 1 or 2 in there. It’s pretty harsh even at half throttle. I've burned through the U-joints (double cardian type, at $300 for the rebuild) at about 105,000. That is, so far, knock on wood, the only breakage I can possibly attribute to the harsh shifts.

chumley · Post by **chumley** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:19 am

Big Blazer??? as in K5??
They are available as surplus CUCVs from the military.. We just got a bunch of them here at work. They are '79 models geared very low

Sorry I meant my big S10 Blazer ( in sig. line)