Difference between Vortec & Non-Vortec?

[chevy94]

I just purchased a 1994 Astro CS. The Vin engine code is Z for the 4.3L V-6. The valve covers say Vortec V-6.

My 1989 Astro has the standard 4.3 V-6 Non-Vortec. Can someone explain the difference between the two engines? Many Thanks.

[drew300]

Marketing
Sounds impressive, "Vortec", maybe even masculine.

[Kings-x59]

There's a blurb on this website that describes what a vortec engine is.
http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpower...ngines/vortec/

[drew300]

I thought swirl-technology was decades older than the Vortec engines.
It would be quite a trick to non-swirl (laminar flow) a fuel/ air mixture into an explanding cylinder through an off-centered poppet valve, in a wedge-head.
That would be one heck of a useless accomplishment!
Maybe i should try for a research grant.....

[Kings-x59]

LMAO!
Work in an alternative fuel derived from oil and you are sure to to get millions in grant money!

[tom3]

The actual name is more marketing than anything else. Consider a Vortec 2.2 four banger, what a joke. Maybe a Dodge Magnum four cylinder? Sure it is. But the 4.3 Vortecs were a pretty big improvement over the throttle body, especially when they improved the heads in the mid 90s. Sure not without their problems though. The Vortecs had improved air flow, port injection, better cams, balancers, electronics, and that dreaded electronic EGR valve.

[Kings-x59]

yes the dreaded EGR, the part that got so increadibly expensive when OBD 2 went into effect.
But, after the "vortec" arrived the horse power on the 4.3's did start to go up.
I suspect it was nothing more than a half ass port and polish on the heads.

[drew300]

But don't forget, every other manufacturers' horse power went up over the last decade too, using non-Vortec technology.

[Kings-x59]

man ya can't get nuthin past Drew canya!

[drew300]

Hey, I try.
Now if only I can get my van to start.....
(see other posts)

[rksnc]

The fact remains, the more air you can put into a cylinder, the more you are going to get for you bang. This is something you cannot get around. You need as much fuel and air you can pack into a cylinder for the most power. You can pack more air getting to swirl while entering. This is not hype. There are people out there who do more study and have the means to do the studys.

[Kings-x59]

Going from 12 - 14 psi fuel delivery to 50 to 60 psi alone will pack more air/fuel into the cylinder alone.
Also made the fuel pumps reeealy expensive.

[drew300]

Interesting. Maybe I missed the boat, and "Vortec" refers to the vortex started in the intake manifold by the 60 psi fuel pushing more fuel/air into the cylinder....
Poor mans' supercharging?

[Kings-x59]

It's not just the more air you can put in, but how well you can atomize the fuel into the air. Gasoline, even the high octane, is not all that highly refined a fuel. A fair amount, even in these days of all the additives, goes out the tail pipe. Now the catalytic converter takes care of some of the excess. So the vortex effect mixes the fuel / air a bit better and more bang for the buck. Although I think this is a lot of marketing hype as well. I think GM did a little better job on the ports, put a bit of spin on the in-flow and voila...vortec.

[rksnc]

But if you get more air into cyl , then are you not then also getting more fuel. And with all the sensors at work , computer is working to keeps fuel air ratio at 14:1.