200hp V6

[doyoulikeithere]

Yes I do look at the picture I posted that the engine in mine.Eyebrow heads countershaft motor Non CPI did not have the eyebrows.Same valve covers.Dealer told me it a conversion van with drivetrain upgrades.Ive got pics from when I did the intake gaskets it clear those the heads I got.It isnt rocket science to see that big countershaft balance in there.My frame is the same as a 97 got 7.5 inch wide rims.This thing got upgaded in a big way.S-10 forum claiming that if it had the heads and counterbalance it was a CPI motor with TBI

I know I cant spell hipertektic, and apparently, neither does the spell checker on this site, I tried several ways before I stopped caring!
Anyways, I hear what your saying. I'm sure it does have that countershaft.
In 94 they made win Z and Vin W. Both had a BS inside. Both had the eyebrow heads, but the VinZ didnt have hpertektik pistons or lightweight rotating components.

Maybe your lucky and somene threw a TBI onto a Vin W engine for you, I dont know, but I doubt it.

I'm not wanting to argue or crap on your parade, Just that The OP was asking about subtle differences in these engines, and this is the main one I'm aware of.
Lightweight rotating assembly, Hypertektix pistons and a hotter cam in the VIN W engines.

"•All of the 14088640 castings are heavy cranks that can be used in either the ’87 to ’94 non-balancer engines or in the ’93 to ’95 VIN "Z" balance shaft motors with the heavy pistons."

Its all in here again.
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article ... y_262.aspx

[MountainManJoe]

Now hang on. The engine with hypereutectic, strutless pistons and a more aggressive camshaft (LU2) was used on the 1990-92. It only produced 170hp.
After that came the 200hp L35, which had CPI, aluminum plenums and the balance shaft.

[chevymaher]

Yes Ive read all the same things from several sources with conflicting results.Not important on the lightwieght stuff as cam goes the van lopes when it idles.Whatever it got going on it doing it right.I used to go through the same stuff locally.1 good pull on the freeway and giggling over.this thing is totally stock the way my mother bought it and it no way shape or form runs like it used to.Simple tuning upgrades same as my race cars woke this thing up.It low geared and it winds out about a hundred.Ive had alot of hot cars and I just as confused why this thing runs the way it does.I got a big block chevelle so I not confused about what fast is this aint it but for stock cars on the road it a wake up call.

[doyoulikeithere]

yup everytime I read this thing I pickup something new.
I see the 92-95 Vin W have the lightweight rotating stuff, but the hypertektic pistons were actually not in the VIN W. Just a Lightweight piston, but not hypertektic.

and cams?
1992-’95 VIN "W" WITH BALANCE SHAFT: The premium high output engine came with central fuel injection, a balance shaft and a better cam starting in ’92. The original cam, p/n 10144047, was used from ’92 to ’94. It was replaced by p/n 10241693 in ’95. They are comparable grinds so most rebuilders are interchanging them.

[chevymaher]

Thats what I talkin bout what they sayin and what it got two different things.I got a 700R-4 stamped tranny out of a 90 astro downstairs that electrinic controlled.No TV cable just same wires my 94 got.

[1Gary]

To answer the question about fuel systems,first a carb to a TBI and then a TBI to a CPI each a step towards better fuel management and fuel curve.Down side is the EFI's not stock having the same CFM as say a 600CFM Holley carb.But the after market EFI systems hands down are miles ahead of carbs.

[MountainManJoe]

OK so the boost in performance could be thanks to lightweight components and better camshaft. So what happened after that... Did they go back to heavy stuff and poor cams? Maybe they intentionally restricted the engines (through various means) so that it would get better fuel economy. I wasn't old enough to drive in the mid 90's so I don't know. Was good fuel mileage a big selling feature back then?

[LiftedAWDAstro]

My frame is the same as a 97

I just have to. Sorry but your 94 does not have a 97 subframe unless it was swapped out. If your mom bought it new in 94 how did it get a 97 frame? There are differences as well such as you have a linkage from the shifter coming through the firewall to the tranny and your ABS module is mounted near the battery. On a 97 neither of these is true.

[chevymaher]

My frame is the same as a 97

I just have to. Sorry but your 94 does not have a 97 subframe unless it was swapped out. If your mom bought it new in 94 how did it get a 97 frame? There are differences as well such as you have a linkage from the shifter coming through the firewall to the tranny and your ABS module is mounted near the battery. On a 97 neither of these is true.

May not be out of 97 but it same type frame want a pic.Guess I cant read a tape either those 7.5 inch stock wheels really 6.5 like they supposed to be.Nobody went through all this to have a measily few extra horse power.The factory gave generalizations that are taken as gospel truth.Then they run whatever they got.I know a guy who worked on a GM assembly line.Do you know how many factory 409 W motor impalas there were in 65?None they officially did not make them.But that guy was sure putting them in to exhaust excess stock from a warehouse.What about that 700R-4 I got with electronic controls.Why would anybody do that.I want a V-8 I sure am not putting expensive parts on my van so it got 30-40 whatever rated extra horses.It is what it came with.

[MountainManJoe]

Chevymaher, would you mind discussing the particulars of your van in your own topic please?

[chevymaher]

I thought the point of these forums was to mod and better the van.I was wrong.Sorry

[MountainManJoe]

That's a time out in the corner for you... unless you know the answer to my question.

[MountainManJoe]

Here's a little blurb from Consumer Guide.

POWERTRAIN OPTIONS AND AVAILABILITY
In all Astros, a 4.3-liter V6 engine hooks to a 4-speed automatic transmission. The standard engine in 1990 was rated 150 horsepower, but an optional 175-horsepower edition joined during the '91 model year. A year later, the optional HP (High Performance) V6 put out 200 horsepower, available only in 2WD models. Base-engine horsepower rose from 150 to 165 in 1993. For 1996, the V6 became part of GM's Vortec family, reaching 190 horsepower but dropping from 260 to 250 pound-feet of torque.

[1Gary]

That's pretty stout when you consider HP vs 262 cubic inch and that measurement is at the wheels and the losses because of that.

[Kabey's Van]

OK so the boost in performance could be thanks to lightweight components and better camshaft. So what happened after that... Did they go back to heavy stuff and poor cams? Maybe they intentionally restricted the engines (through various means) so that it would get better fuel economy. I wasn't old enough to drive in the mid 90's so I don't know. Was good fuel mileage a big selling feature back then?

Good fuel milage is always a key selling point when dealing with a family oriented vehicle. I don't recall any fuel shortages back in the 90's but I did own a 3/4 ton Chevy pick-up on propane back then.
I must of had a reason for owning that cause, well, propane scares the hell out of me.
I recall in the early 90's that propane was around .20 cents a litre and gas was almost double that.
As more people converted to propane it wasn't long before the oil companies started selling propane at par with gasoline.
A light weight rotating assembly does not do as much for horse power as it does for torque, as it allows for the motor to spool up quicker and in turn bring torque on quicker.
A better cam and heads that breath better will help improve things tremendously.
Torque gets you moving where as h/p keeps you moving.

That's pretty stout when you consider HP vs 262 cubic inch and that measurement is at the wheels and the losses because of that.

I'm sure that's crankshaft h/p not brake h/p.
Jeese Gary, I know your busy and all, but you should know that.