3.1L or 3.8L
spam>cheapysneakers@hotmail.com MotorMike
goes...
I'm looking at buying a used car around 1996 to 1998 GM either
Buick or olds.. and I was having work done on my old car when I was talking
to the service writer and asked him about GM's V6 engines and which one had
better reliability and he said he has a Pontiac with 3.1L and it was a
really solid engine, but when I talked to the mechanic that was working on
my car
he said the 3.1 was a poor engine, P.O.S ,I think he put it.. and the 3.8
was
the only V6 that was any good.. Just wondering if anybody else has had any
experience with either of these engines for reliability and durability
davefr
supercharger).
I believe Wards rated this engine as one of the best engines ever.
Mine has 100k mi and has been problem free. It runs almost better than
new and doesn't use a drop of oil. There's also a ton of aftermarket
parts for modifying the L67.
"MotorMike" <<no spam>cheapys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pjB8a.697$Or5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Nate Nagel
your mechanic told you, the 3.8 is possibly the best GM engine ever
while the 3.1 is average at best. Given the choice between the two I
think it's a no brainer in favor of the 3.8
nate
hennyh...@hotmail.com (davefr) wrote in message news:<c8c760cf.03030...@posting.google.com>...
py...@texxxas.net
and ruining bearings due to leaking water into the engine crankcase.
The 3.8 version type 1 was a good engine - cast iron heads.
Nothing ever went wrong with it.
The 3.8 type 2 has problems due to plastic intake warping and leaking.
If I had to choose, I would get the 3.8.
shiden_kai
"MotorMike wrote
> but when I talked to the mechanic that was working on
> my car
> he said the 3.1 was a poor engine, P.O.S ,I think he put it.. and the 3.8
> was
> the only V6 that was any good.. Just wondering if anybody else has had any
> experience with either of these engines for reliability and durability
I would take the 3.8 over the 3.1 anyday. Very reliable, and gets very
good gas mileage.
Ian
Harry Smith
I can 4th the votes for the 3.8L engine. It's derived from the old
RWD 3.8L that appeared in a lot of cars in the seventies and eighties,
and the newer FWD versions have now been seen in almost all of GM's
midsize+ cars since 1990. Also, it gets virtually the same gas
mileage as the 3.1, and puts out more power. One of the most
efficient engines ever made, as far as horsepower-to-gas mileage goes.
Very reliable for the most part, baring a few issues like the
mentioned intake manifold.
No actual experience here, just a lot of reading and watching.
Harry
spam>cheapysneakers@hotmail.com MotorMike
Olds.. sounds like the best bang for the buck..
"Harry Smith" <ev1lb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d1b834fa.03030...@posting.google.com...
Rick Colombo
which btw is running strong with over 215K miles. The only real problem
I had with it was a leaky oil seal for the plug where the distributor
use to be. -Rick
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Rick Col...@fnal.gov
1990 Olds Cutlass Supreme International w/3.1L engine
timewave5
you take it to an independent.
The 3.1L is a fine smooth running engine with good power, but the last few
I've owned had main seal oil leaks which is also very common. That's not a
cheap fix. Also, the GM auto transmissions associated with the 3.1L are weak
and problem prone.
I agree the 3.8L is the way to go. Have had several in newer Grand Prixs and
they put even the fine 3.1L to shame...
"Rick Colombo" <Col...@Ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:3E69B41...@Ameritech.net...
no...@none.net
wrote:
Also, the GM auto transmissions associated with the 3.1L are weak
>and problem prone.
>
No.
There is not a simple one to one correspondence between engine and
transmissions in GM cars.
For instance the Hydromatic 4T65 is found on both the Buick Century
(3.1) , Pontiac Bon neville (3.8 normal) and the Buick Park Avenue
Ultra with the 3.8L 240 hp Turbo charged.
In fact because, in the case of the Century, you have a small engine
driving a large tranny one could expect less tranny problems on the
Century combination (3.1) than the Park Ave combination (turbo 3.8).
Service history has proven this to be true.
The 4T65 transmission can be found on GM engines from 2.5L to 3.8L
turbocharged.
On the other hand the Chevy Malibu uses the Hydromatic 4T40-E/4T45-E
with the Malibu's 3.1 engine. This tranny is used in GM engines from
1.5L to 3.4L
What tranny is associated with which engine depends on brand and model
not simply on engine size.
Beowulf
Steve
> better reliability and he said he has a Pontiac with 3.1L and it was a
> really solid engine, but when I talked to the mechanic that was working on
> my car
> he said the 3.1 was a poor engine, P.O.S ,I think he put it.. and the 3.8
> was
> the only V6 that was any good.. Just wondering if anybody else has had any
> experience with either of these engines for reliability and durability
>
>
The 3.1 is a Chevrolet division engine, and has all the characteristics
of a typical Chevrolet engine: rods too short for the stroke, noisy
(particularly piston slap and gudgeon pin noise when cold), but
generally reliable if not abused. If abused, its prone to puke rods
through the block in the typical small-block Chevy fashion- upward and
out the side, because thats where the peak loading occurs because of the
excessively short rods and uneven accelerations that result. Not
outstandingly bad, but nothing partuicularly *good* about it either.
The 3.8 was designed by the Buick division and is an excellent engine in
all regards.
I agree with the mechanic.
