hey everyone, since my beloved 78 'maro needs ALOT of work done to her, and summer gas prices are starting to show themselves, i was on the lookout for a 4 or 6cyl car to drive around while i fix up my baby. well a kid in my class tells me he has 2 70 something chevelles, one with a 350, one with an inline 6, the inline 6 he says is very very reliable and gets much better mpg than his 350, but is slower than slow. this got me thinking, and i ran across an 81 'maro with a 229 v6 motor in my price range. i dont know much about these things and was wondering how good they are. is it as good as the inline 6? hows the gas going to be on this? if i can get practically the exact same car (later 2nd gen 'maros are my favorite ever lol) but have it be economical-ish, then im sold already lol not to mention the 81 is in great shape, in no way a show car, but alot better than my pride and joy 78 haha, thanks everyone!

.

I know very very little about V-6's. I do know the 2.8's I've had over the years sucked.
The 4.3's were excellent runners. The 2.8's got better mileage, and they took a mile and a half to get up to 60 on the highway.

.

yeah speed i dont care about whatsoever, this is a v6 auto with a/c, my current DD is a 350 4spd no a/c lol thats my fun fast car, this is just DD in style! haha

.

I forgot to mention, the 4.3 uses a lot of the same stuff, as an old style V-8.

.

the 229 is a 305 with 2 missing cylinders the 4.3 is a 350 with 2 missing cylinders hense why the 4.3 is better. the 229 is just like a 305 in every sense they last as long any you cant kill them very easily. as for mpg i have no clue, im guessing you still want to drive a vintage chevy but get good milage. chances are you will be flooring it everywhere you go to get it to move consuming more gas and defeating the purpose, the straight 6 is also slower than molasis on a cold winters day.

You must also keep in mind that a larger engine does not have to work as hard as a smaller engine does to move the same amount of weight. That being said, a smaller engine will still move a large car with more effort, but if you're ok with slow acceleration, it will do the trick, but if you mat it down and try to keep decent speed up hills, leaving stoplights etc, you'll find it probably won't be as good as you would like it to be. I had a 96 4x4 s-10 with a 4.3, 4L60e, and it was of the utmost reliability. However it was terrible on gas. There was no acceleration, which was dissipointing considering the light weight s10. The only time it seemed to shine was during highway driving in OD for long periods of time. I recently sold this truck to upgrade to a larger truck. I took a step back in time to an 86 4x4 3/4 GMC, carbed overbored 350 with a manual trans. This truck is much heavier than the s-10, and has no overdrive. I'm able to get 22mpg with this one. The s-10 did good to knock on the door of 19-20mpg. I know there is a lot of variables as well, but its an addition 2 cylinders moving probably an extra 1000lbs of truck with less than perfect aerodynamics turning more rpms. Fuel consumtion is indicitive to the load placed on the engine. A v6 having 10inchs of vacuum during cruise will consume almost the same amount of fuel as a v8 with 15 inchs of vacuum at cruise (If moving the same vehicle).

I believe the only time the smaller engines shine is in lighter vehicles, not heavier cars like ours. If your worried about mileage, why not look at a smaller V8, such as a 267, 283, or even a 305. Still have 8 cylinders to fill, but they are smaller, and still have a farely good torque curve compared to any v6. Also have the carb properly tuned with a wideband o2 sensor, and with responsible driving you'll be surprised at how well it will preform.

the 229 is a 305 with 2 missing cylinders the 4.3 is a 350 with 2 missing cylinders hense why the 4.3 is better.

right,, although a different rod in each,, the 200, the 229 use the same rod. there were 2 different rods used in the 262 up through 1993 or so. not sure after that. they are all different from the 350 rod. the 200 was also offered as a 3.5" bore. check closely for what you really have if ordering internal engine parts. journal sizes differ on the 262. rod bores are bigger. 200/229 rods are narrower at the big end than the 350 with a dimple on the rod beam.
andy

This subject has been a conversation with many for a long time.
DoTheDew and 74Rat have excellent comments regarding this but I was surprised no one mentions the fact of the difference in low end torque between the earlier straight 6's and the latter V-6's.

Consider that the better low end torque and proper gearing with a straight 6 will get a heavy 2nd gen off the line and out further than a similar car with a V6. Look at all the major designs of the big rig Caterpillar / Detriot / Cummings/ and IH diesels and you will find more power to move at lower engine speeds and more fuel economy than the comparable V-engines. Heck GM even went back to the inline concepts with the Vortec engines for the Trailblazers and other products.

So the question was why did GM install the V-6? Because they could use the more compact design in other vehicles of the entire product line since it was more compact overall. With newer technology, the inline engine designs have come back since they are able to produce more power over a broader rpm range and give better fuel economy through fuel injection and less air / fuel distribution problems.

Getting back to the OP's questions, the 229 V-6 will be only as economical as the way you drive it! IF you floor it at every stoplight to get going, it will suck the gas to overcome the lower power to weight ratio. With an effective tune for improved efficiency, better ignition, high flowing intake, good flowing exhaust, clean lubricants and smart driving habits, it will be a good looking car and serve you well with little headaches.

As a plus, many of the 229's that have worn out can generally be replaced with a stronger 4.3 since they are nearly identical externally as a 283 to a 400...

right,, although a different rod in each,, the 200, the 229 use the same rod. there were 2 different rods used in the 262 up through 1993 or so. not sure after that. they are all different from the 350 rod. the 200 was also offered as a 3.5" bore. check closely for what you really have if ordering internal engine parts. journal sizes differ on the 262. rod bores are bigger. 200/229 rods are narrower at the big end than the 350 with a dimple on the rod beam.
andy
Right on the money also with the 4.3 there were several different pistons used over the years and by different engine plants [at the same time] most look the same but the weights aren't some of the engines used a piston assembly with a 675 gram target weight and others with 745 gram even though the casting numbers maybe the same .

Right on the money also with the 4.3 there were several different pistons used over the years and by different engine plants [at the same time] most look the same but the weights aren't some of the engines used a piston assembly with a 675 gram target weight and others with 745 gram even though the casting numbers maybe the same .

i'm wanting to say that was the difference when they changed to the late style rod. the piston skirts got shorter and narrower from the old style 350 piston,, and went to metric ring packages on some. .058 ring thickness,, or 1.5mm and 3.0mm oil rings. maybe they were hypers? don't know,, but yes, i'm with ya, multiple pistons offered on the 4.3liter. it's been a while since i delt with those on a regular basis,, since 1993 or so.

edit: maybe it was when they added the counter balance shafts in the lifter valley like arround the same time the 3.8liter buicks and fords did. they changed arroud the same time also.
andy

i'm wanting to say that was the difference when they changed to the late style rod. the piston skirts got shorter and narrower from the old style 350 piston,, and went to metric ring packages on some. .058 ring thickness,, or 1.5mm and 3.0mm oil rings. maybe they were hypers? don't know,, but yes, i'm with ya, multiple pistons offered on the 4.3liter. it's been a while since i delt with those on a regular basis,, since 1993 or so.

edit: maybe it was when they added the counter balance shafts in the lifter valley like arround the same time the 3.8liter buicks and fords did. they changed arroud the same time also.
andy

You might not run into too many of them down there but up here we run into engines from both the Canadian engine plant and the US plant . GM in there infinite wisdom decided to do the same as Ford and let each engine plant design their own engines , in theory two sheets of paper ,two design concepts, fresh ideas , better product or money savings , reality two different engines , one set of casting numbers and a whole lot of confusion
Your probably right that it was around the time they threw the balance shafts in them

personally i think that if you are concerned with fuel economy you should not even consider a non od automatic. those old autos are terribly inefficient.
you would be better off to get a 4spd car or retro fit a modern od unit.
but at that point you would be straying from your intentions of a cheap driver.

personally i think that if you are concerned with fuel economy you should not even consider a non od automatic. those old autos are terribly inefficient.
you would be better off to get a 4spd car or retro fit a modern od unit.
but at that point you would be straying from your intentions of a cheap driver.
yeah i forgot that these old trannys didnt have O/D, i think my 4spd in the camaro is a direct drive no O/D because it revs at about 3500 while doing parkway speeds, i was also looking at an early 90's Cavalier, it is a small lightweight car with a smaller V6, convertible, although my dad tells me they arent all that reliable, my friend has a mid 90's Z24 and it has 160k+ miles on it and is fine except for when he abuses it lol, thanks everyone for your responses, knowing me i would be punching the v6 in a nearly 2 ton car making it terrible on gas lol, whats everyone think about the 2.8L cavalier Z24? they seemed to do pretty well with the 4cyl, so i could imagine with a v6 with not much more displacement would get great mpgs if i drive it nicely.

those v6 z24s are fast cars. could be a fun dd. (fast used in a relative sense)
if im not mistaken the z24 cavs and probe gts ran with the mustang gt after 15-20 mph

i am throwing out a complete 229 from an 80 Firebird, with trans, if you want another one you can have mine! I wouldn't even consider one of these cars not with a v8 in it, they are too heavy