Forum Discussion
ktosv
Dec 17, 2015Explorer
As mentioned, the 4.2L I6 was designed for use on this platform. It was one of Wards Auto Top 10 Engines of the year when it came out. I once read that the bad thing about the engine is that GM didn't put it in any of the cars. Remember, they were still making Olds 88's, Auroras and other larger cars at the same time this engine came out.
We towed a 5000 GVWR hybrid travel trailer with a 2004 Envoy XL I6/3.73. It did fine in my opinion, but I wouldn't have wanted to towed any more with it. Due to the long wheelbase and short rear overhang, this was the most stable set up I have ever towed.
The 4.2L was rated at 275HP and 275#-ft of torque when it was introduced. Being an I6 it has a flat torque curve with decent low end torque. The problem is that the HP doesn't really start to build until over 3000 RPM. Above 3000 RPM it will really scoot. The one thing that I loved was that at 4500 RPM it wasn't screaming...another attribute of the I6. I had no problems pulling hills in Michigan. Ours also went like mad in the snow.
If you aren't opposed to the added length, I would look at the extended length models.
We towed a 5000 GVWR hybrid travel trailer with a 2004 Envoy XL I6/3.73. It did fine in my opinion, but I wouldn't have wanted to towed any more with it. Due to the long wheelbase and short rear overhang, this was the most stable set up I have ever towed.
The 4.2L was rated at 275HP and 275#-ft of torque when it was introduced. Being an I6 it has a flat torque curve with decent low end torque. The problem is that the HP doesn't really start to build until over 3000 RPM. Above 3000 RPM it will really scoot. The one thing that I loved was that at 4500 RPM it wasn't screaming...another attribute of the I6. I had no problems pulling hills in Michigan. Ours also went like mad in the snow.
If you aren't opposed to the added length, I would look at the extended length models.
About Travel Trailer Group
44,025 PostsLatest Activity: Feb 18, 2025