{solved} Engine code for 2003?

Post by **HenryJ** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:01 pm

I was cruzin ZR2.com and came across a shocking bit of information:

...the 2003's have the X engine, less horsepower compared to the W engine. The 2003 is not the best choice, disappointing information.

Does this hold true for the Crew Cabs as well?

Can anyone please check the VIN # on their '03 and see what the 8th digit is, please?

I'd like to disprove this rumor, the 4X4 was suppose to have the "W" engine.

ExMoparMan · Post by **ExMoparMan** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:50 am

I have a 2003 Sonoma with a W engine code

Conman · Post by **Conman** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:27 am

IIRC, the change was something to do with the EFI stuff. Probably something to get better smog numbers.

Con

AZS10Crew · Post by **AZS10Crew** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 9:10 am

Mine's got the X...dammit.

Joseph · Post by **Joseph** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:57 am

My '02 has a W. I just check to make sure you'll never know. I wondering what a dealer mignt say about this. The brochure for the '03 S-10's doesn't say anything about that the last time I read it. I could over look it. Back in 1978 my dad bought new GMC full size truck with a Heavy Half option package. When he went in to the dealer for a check up the machanic noticed the 1/2 ton suspension was a really 3/4 ton suspension. OOPS, some one goof up at the factory. JH68

barch97 · Post by **barch97** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:56 pm

so far I've been able to find that there's a W= L35 4.3L and an X= LF6 4.3L. what exactly the difference is... I have no idea

Post by **HenryJ** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:07 pm

Ive heard several explanations for the differences between the W and X engines.

The one I believe the most is that the camshaft profiles differ.

The W engine is rated at 190 hp and the X is 180hp.

I've heard that there are differences in injection systems, the Y pipe is larger on the W engine, camshaft design, cylinder heads different, intake manifold design, etc.

I'm not sure what to believe.

AZS10Crew, bummer! I was hoping it wasn't true! Guess you proved the rumor was more than just that!

So , I guess that is just one more thing they did to strip the 2003's

AZS10Crew · Post by **AZS10Crew** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 9:02 am

HenryJ wrote:AZS10Crew, bummer! I was hoping it wasn't true! Guess you proved the rumor was more than just that!

So , I guess that is just one more thing they did to strip the 2003's

Bastards!

Oh well. I'll still keep it I guess.

Conman · Post by **Conman** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:32 am

HenryJ wrote:Ive heard several explanations for the differences between the W and X engines.

The one I believe the most is that the camshaft profiles differ.

The W engine is rated at 190 hp and the X is 180hp.

I've heard that there are differences in injection systems, the Y pipe is larger on the W engine, camshaft design, cylinder heads different, intake manifold design, etc.

I'm not sure what to believe.

AZS10Crew, bummer! I was hoping it wasn't true! Guess you proved the rumor was more than just that!

So , I guess that is just one more thing they did to strip the 2003's

On the website it's still listed as 190HP. Less for 2wd though.

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:33 am

I'll need to check my glovebox to make sure, but in 2003 there is no such thing as a 'W' engine. There is only one 4.3L engine in 2003, I guess they decided to use 'X' instead of 'W'. The more important letter/number here is weather it is a LF6 or L35. Either way, regardless of VIN or RPO, the 4X4 is 190 HP and the 2WD is 180 HP. When the OBD is programmed, the 4X4 receives different fuel/ignition tables and tire sizes than the 2WD which gives it the extra 10 HP (or limits the other one, is the glass half empty or half full). In the past, 2 different engines were used, the 'X' and 'W'. Now it's just a fuel/ignition programming difference.

WHY? Well, 2003 will be the last year for the 4.3L V6 engine, why produce more than you need. Just make one and change it with the push of a button instead of cams and y-pipes, make sense? It's not that the 2003's are cheaper, they are produced more effeciently. And GM will continue this trend once it signs with Vector, Int'l. All of the engines will have base plants, and will be shipped all over the world. Your local factory will only be an assembly plant. No more will the days be of a SAAB 9-3 having a different frame than a Chevy Cavalier, they will all have the same frame made in the same factory and shipped to Germany, Lordstown, OH, Osaka, Japan. Result = slight uptick in quality at MUCH less cost to GM (which may translate to us, but probably not).

Sorry for the post as long as a book, I got a little upset at all of the negative bashing of the '03 (on the ZR2 forum), when NOTHING has really changed...

Post by **HenryJ** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:40 am

cool, Guess we need to have some glove box RPO codes to confirm any differences.

How about another rumor?

I've heard that the Series line is done after 2003, but they will continue the S-series Crew Cabs until 2005.

AZS10Crew · Post by **AZS10Crew** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:49 pm

Whew! That's good to hear! I thought I was getting shortchanged out of 10 ponies. Realistically though it wouldn't have mattered. 10 HP is nothing that can't be made up with a muffler and high flow filter.

Post by **HenryJ** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:59 pm

What RPO engine code do you have?

Check your glove box PLEASE

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 1:05 pm

I've actually heard the opposite, that the Colorado Crew Cab will be coming out in April and the S-Series Crew Cab is done. While the rest of the Colorado will catch up in 2004. I've also heard that the Colorado will start in Fall of 2003 and the S-10 will be around until Spring of 2005 (so both will be on the lot). Don't know? They did sell the Monte Carlo and Lumina at the same time, not to mention the Blazer and TrailBlazer, never did get that...

As far as the Colorado, the rumors are spreading like wildfire. But according to chevy.com and the brochures (plus the dealership communication), the Colorado will be available in all cab and suspension choices in Fall of '03 (the 2004 model). The four cylinder (the Vortec 2800) won't be out until Winter, so the S-10 will continue until Spring at least. Everything past that is rumor.... (doesn't mean it won't come true, though

)

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 6:59 am

Okay, I need help. I thought this could laid to rest early and easy. I'm starting to doubt the X engine is going to be ok.

I have two RPO codes that might be the engine, L30 and LU3. The only two 'L' codes listed. I thought the engine was ALWAYS listed...

Post by **HenryJ** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:52 am

I tried two separate RPO searches and found nothing for those codes.

They may not be listed yet

RPO by letter search

EastcostZR2 RPO search engine

Maybe we need a second opinnion? Anyone else have an X and some RPO #'s?

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:18 am

The above post was wrong, it's not L30 but LIN...

I used those two search engines plus this one http://www.gmperformance.org/rposearch/

These are the RPO codes I could not find for the 2003:

D32

EVA

JL1

LIN

LU3

NT9

QBF

RSA

R9Z

SLM

VXS

1SZ

6WK

7WK

Oh, BTW, according to my RPO codes... I didn't get an engine

I think the LU3 is the engine code since the LU2 was once a 4.3L 90 degree V6 engine. Still, nothing answered in the VIN 'X' question...

Post by **HenryJ** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:44 am

marks10cc wrote:The above post was wrong, it's not L30 but LIN...

These are the RPO codes I could not find for the 2003:

D32

EVA=Test DVT, Evaporator Emission Requirement

JL1

LIN

LU3

NT9

QBF= Tire, P235/70R15 Blackwall, All Season

RSA=Restraint Front Seat, Auto, Passive

R9Z

SLM

VXS

1SZ

6WK

7WK

I was able to fill in three from the Helm's manual

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:04 am

Thanks Henry!!

I think I cracked the mystery...

D32=Mirror I/S FRT VAN, R/H Sunshade

EVA=Test DVT, Evaporator Emission Requirement

JL1 (misprint, should be JC1)

JC1=4 wheel disc brake, 5,500 Lbs

LIN=Plant Code, Linden, NJ, USA

LU3=Engine!, Gas, 6 Cyl, 4.3L, MFI, V6, 90 Deg

NT9=Emission System, Federal 2-Tier Phase Out

QBF= Tire, P235/70R15 Blackwall, All Season

RSA=Restraint Front Seat, Auto, Passive

R9Z=Control, Sales Item Number 100 (What is this???)

SLM=Sales Processing, Stock Orders

VXS=Vehicle, Complete (obviously)

1SZ=Discount, Option Package

6WK=Component FRT LH, Computer SEL SUSP (6WK)

7WK=Component FRT RH, Computer SEL SUSP (7WK)

Here's the link: http://service.gm.com/gmtechlink/images ... 02.xls.pdf

So.... Looks like the '03's have a new engine: 4.3L MFI, Vin Code: X. Were the 'W' engines still CFI? Why the change? New Emissions settings for '03?

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:08 am

Mystery SOLVED!

So the W is CPI , and the X is MFI.

Sounds like the 2003 did get a good engine afterall

Thanks for sticking with it Mark

AZS10Crew · Post by **AZS10Crew** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 12:47 pm

Good thing...now I can rest easier.

Warnoffroad · Post by **Warnoffroad** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:48 pm

You guys have way to much time on your hands

blazer4949 · Post by **blazer4949** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 7:10 pm

My 2003 has the X engine and it is LESS powerful than my former 2000 which had the W engine. There is a difference. Also, my MPH on the 2000 was between 17 and 18. The 2003 only gets between 14 and 15.

The lack of power in my 2003 in understandable if it does have 10 less horses, that's about what it seems like.

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 7:22 pm

Another thing to think about is , how many miles do you guys have on those 2003's?

Mine didn't really wake up until after 10k mi.

There are definately some differences, emission standards would be one , but it does still list it as a 190 hp engine for the 4X4's.

blazer4949 · Post by **blazer4949** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 7:39 pm

Just checked my owners manual for my 2003. On page 5-94 it says the engine VIN code is W. But on the 8th digit of the VIN number it is a X.

Very upset with Chevrolet.

Conman · Post by **Conman** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 7:45 pm

blazer4949 wrote:My 2003 has the X engine and it is LESS powerful than my former 2000 which had the W engine. There is a difference. Also, my MPH on the 2000 was between 17 and 18. The 2003 only gets between 14 and 15.

The lack of power in my 2003 in understandable if it does have 10 less horses, that's about what it seems like.

My 2002, I get about 10MPG........

I don't think it's the engine its the gas formula now a days. I think this engine "tweak" has gotten out of hand. My Mazda Protege only got like 12MPG, even though it's rated at like 25MPG Highway. I drive short distances so MPG is a very variable thing.

Con

AZS10Crew · Post by **AZS10Crew** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 9:46 pm

I'm not sure why you guys are all getting such low mileage...mine regularly gets around 19 mpg.

I don't think 10 HP less really would make a very noticeable SOTP difference either. However...if the power band over portions of the RPM range is drastically different than the older models, then you might notice a difference. For example...if peak HP only went down 10HP, but 1000-3000 RPM HP went down an average of 30HP, then you'd have a difference that you would feel when driving. But, if it's only 10 HP difference over the entire RPM range, that's not really going to be noticeable. The only way to really compare would be to see dyno graphs of both engines side by side.

ExMoparMan · Post by **ExMoparMan** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:50 am

oops........just checked my trucks vin and it is an X engine which also says differnt in the paperwork

, And about the fuel milage I just returned from vacation and never got below 21.5mpg the whole trip. Most of the time it was around 23mpg with 4300 miles on the truck and the best I ever got was 24.3mpg with 3000 miles on the truck

Conman · Post by **Conman** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:13 am

ExMoparMan wrote:oops........just checked my trucks vin and it is an X engine which also says differnt in the paperwork , And about the fuel milage I just returned from vacation and never got below 21.5mpg the whole trip. Most of the time it was around 23mpg with 4300 miles on the truck and the best I ever got was 24.3mpg with 3000 miles on the truck

Very nice! best tank I ever got was 18MPG. But it was really green with like 300 miles and I was carrying a small load. I have not done highway miles in a while but I expect 20mpg+ would be viable if I was not loaded.

BTW, I hear that NYC taxi drivers get like 6-8mpg only cause they drive in really heavy city traffic and stop and go so much.

Cheers,

Con

a2b · Post by **a2b** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 3:24 pm

blazer4949 wrote:My 2003 has the X engine and it is LESS powerful than my former 2000 which had the W engine. There is a difference. Also, my MPH on the 2000 was between 17 and 18. The 2003 only gets between 14 and 15.

The lack of power in my 2003 in understandable if it does have 10 less horses, that's about what it seems like.

was there a gear difference mabey?

also, my best was 23mpg and i was loaded down with 3 adults and cargo and it had 100 miles on it

SlickDaddy · Post by **SlickDaddy** » Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:53 pm

while on the subject...

my 99 s10 ext. cab 4x4 had the 180hp engine, but it was also a manual. from what i understand, 4x4 automatics get 190, 4x4 manuals get 180, but thats been 4 years ago, so maybe they did change it

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 10:02 pm

I think it was s-series.org that has a page dedicated to the different engines of the S-10. In '99, there was a 4X4 X and 4X4 W, I think, so that might have been the reason you had 180HP. BTW, with regards to fuel economy, check your gear ratios. I have seen MANY people on this site state they have 3.73's, but I have 3.43's. I think they changed off in 2003 to the shorter gears as a standard and had the 3.73's as an option package (no cost?). After my engine breaks in, I know for a fact I'll be 20+ mpg on the highway with 3.43's... For now, I'll putter along with 15 mpg. 1,900 miles and counting (man I need to get out of the house more....)

BTW, I noticed HUGE difference this last week when it was 50 or so degrees with fuel economy, but I didn't notice that much difference between 0 and 30. Is it more below/above freezing? Or did they switch to "summer gas" around here? With the cost of gas where it is, I'm nickel and diming every mile I can.