GM's best engine: 3.4 or 3.8 ?
Daniel
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?
Daniel
Patrick Foley
If i was to guess it would be a 3300 or a 3800
pat...
"Daniel" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cYy1b.69696$Yz.4...@charlie.risq.qc.ca...
Vuarra
Number one, be careful how many NG you cross-post to.
The GM 3800 would be the best choice from the three you have listed.
Other than making the Forbes list of top 10 engines, this small dynamo
was created by Buick back in the early '60's, and has been around for
40-odd years. While all engines have their drawbacks, this one has
the least amount of problems, and is darn powerful to boot.
As usual, YMMV
Vuarra
Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound.)
Anthony
news:cYy1b.69696$Yz.4...@charlie.risq.qc.ca:
They made a best engine?
My pick:
The 283 V-8.
--
Anthony
You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.
Remove sp to reply via email
PAROADHOG
Gee , I would have thought it would be the Cadillac 4100 or the Vega 4 cyl.
Hahahahahahahahaa
eightupman
FACTORY MOTOR, NOT REBUILT. It runs like a champ. It leaks oil out of the
valve covers, but no noises or anything. And these are true hihway miles.
and hour and a half drive to and from work every day for 2 years.
Anything will last if you keep up with the oil changes and other routine
maintenance.
John
"Daniel" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cYy1b.69696$Yz.4...@charlie.risq.qc.ca...
Larry Smith
which said the 3.4 was the best ever.
All the V6's, from 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.4DOHC, and 3.8 have some drawbacks.
I think that most of the problems can be solved or avoided if you are going
to rebuild.
The 3.8 or 3800 is pretty good however. I have no information higher CID
V6's.
"Daniel" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cYy1b.69696$Yz.4...@charlie.risq.qc.ca...
Emanuel Brown
<eight...@hotmailnospam.com> wrote:
>I have a neighbor with a 3.1 and there is 297,000 miles on the motor.
>FACTORY MOTOR, NOT REBUILT. It runs like a champ. It leaks oil out of the
>valve covers, but no noises or anything. And these are true hihway miles.
>and hour and a half drive to and from work every day for 2 years.
>Anything will last if you keep up with the oil changes and other routine
>maintenance.
There's also the fact that the sort of driving he does is *ideal*
for keeping any car going - plenty of time to warm up, few stops and
starts and apparently no long periods of sitting inactive.
Emanuel
--
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1966-rolls.jpg
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1983-porsche.jpg
Anthony
news:qhK1b.24564$5H4.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com:
I've got an old '78 Ford courier out here with the 2.3L Ford engine in
it. It went 320,000 before I burned a piston by not having the gas/fuel
antifreeze mix correct (fuel gage wasn't working at the time, and a gas
station with a touch of the water blues and my stupidity resulted in a
rebuild). I rebuilt the motor, and drove it. The truck now has in excess
of 550,000 miles on it. I finally parked it this spring. It has done all
it was ever made to do and then some. In 15 years of ownership and half a
million miles, it left me stranded ONE time, and that was MY fault. I saw
the lower radiator hose was swollen up, but was in a hurry and didn't
replace it. Then I forgot about it. Couple weeks later.....it blew off.
Even when the engine burned a piston, it still got me home, abiet with a
trail of smoke..but got me home nonetheless.
This was the cheapest vehicle I have ever owned. I bought it for $1750
with 70,000 miles on it. In it's lifetime, I installed the following:
Rebuilt front suspension/steering $400
Rebuilt motor $1080
Rebuilt rear end (seals, bearings, reset clearances), $100
Two Japanese alternators $110, Then changed over to a standard Ford
alternator, $26
Replaced front rotors, $50
One clutch $160
Two japanese carb rebuild kits, $70, changed over to a used webber, kit
for it was $16
Replaced brake shoes twice, $40
Replace front pads 4 times, $80
New hoses/belts, probably 5 times, est. of about $250
Total cost of ownership (not counting oil changes, tires and gas) was
about $4000 for 15 years of service and half a million miles -- that's
$0.007 per mile.
My current truck, a 87 Ranger, has 233,000, rebuild at 190,000, not for
failure though. The rear main seal was leaking really bad, so I figured
if I was going that deep, I may as well build it while i'm in there. It
ran fine at the time.
Proper maintenance is the key. Oil change every 3000-3500 miles, use a
quality oil (I use castrol) and a good filter. Keep the other filters
changed at regular intervals, and most will give excellent service.
My previous vehicles:
75 Chrysler Cordoba 360 V8, 185,000 miles
78 Ford Courier 2.3L I4, 550,000 +
87 Ford Ranger 2.3L I4 233,000 and still going
94 Plymouth Sundance 2.2L I4, 187,000 - Hit in the ass by someone and
totaled.
96 Dodge Neon Sport 2.0L I4 - 127,000 and still going.
Brad Clarke
<eight...@hotmailnospam.com> wrote:
>>I have a neighbor with a 3.1 and there is 297,000 miles on the motor.
>>FACTORY MOTOR, NOT REBUILT. It runs like a champ. It leaks oil out of the
>>valve covers, but no noises or anything. And these are true hihway miles.
>>and hour and a half drive to and from work every day for 2 years.
>>Anything will last if you keep up with the oil changes and other routine
>>maintenance.
Must be a pre 1999 car.
The 3.1L engine from 1999 onward are prone to a problem known as piston
slap. Mine only lasted 46,000 kms before GM had to put a new engine in
my car.
Brad
Lon Stowell
My bet is the old stove bolt inline 6.
Daniel
were failed attempts to compete against economy japanese cars after the oil
shortage crisis in the early 1970`s.
Daniel
NG.
Daniel J. Stern
Ooh! No! The Oldsmobile Dieselized 350...NO! WAIT! The Cattle-hack
V8-6-4-0!
DS
Daniel J. Stern
Of the three you mention, the 3.8 is the *only* one by a *VERY* large
margin that qualifies as one of GM's better efforts. The 3.1 and 3.4 are
garbage.
DS
JazzMan
I've been reading about all of the problems with the GM 60° V6 engines,
but I'm confused. I'm a fan of Fieros, particularly those with the
2.8L V6. The newest of these cars is now 15 years old, and examples
of these with mileage under 100k miles are fairly rare. Mine currently
has 154k miles on the chassis and 33k miles on the engine. As a member
of a forum with over 7k members I feel like I'm fairly attuned to the
Fiero community at large, so I see first hand what kinds of problems
the 2.8 engines tend to have. Rod bearing failures are common in high
mileage engines, particularly ones with a history of poor maintenance
or abuse. Ignition modules blow left and right, distributor pickup
coils and ignition coils are right behind. Cam lobes wear down, but
remember, these engines are pre-roller lifter designs, so that's to
be expected to some extent.
But the one thing that doesn't happen, and I have never in all my
experience seen happen to either myself or any one of the other Fiero
owners that I'm aware of, is intake gasket failure leading to
coolant in the oil. I've seen blown head gaskets (rare) that result
in coolant consumption, I've seen leaky water pumps, but never even
one intake gasket failure. Why is that? I know many people who have
installed the 3.4 block and heads into a Fiero, utilizing the Fiero's
intake manifold and gaskets. They don't have any history of leaking,
and this is a swap that's been going on for at least 7 years that I
know of.
What is it about the Fiero V6 installation that is different enough
that the 100's of failures that would be expected from a 7k sample
size simply don't happen? Is it the iron heads? Aluminum intake
manifold instead of plastic?
Sometimes I worry about my intake gaskets leaking, but I'm comforted
by the fact that there is no history of my engine experiencing
premature ingake gasket failures.
JazzMan
--
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************
shiden_kai
"JazzMan" wrote
> What is it about the Fiero V6 installation that is different enough
> that the 100's of failures that would be expected from a 7k sample
> size simply don't happen? Is it the iron heads? Aluminum intake
> manifold instead of plastic?
The Fiero's v-6 was a bit different from the average
2.8 engine. I think the only other car that got that style
of 2.8 with upper and lower plenums were the Pontiac
6000 STE's.
But they did leak coolant into the engines occasionally.
I worked on Fiero's non-stop from the time of their
inception to the early 90's. It was not as common of
a repair on the Fiero's, but then there weren't as many
of those engines running around as the base throttle
body injected 2.8's.
No matter, they had enough other screwups on the
Fiero to make up for not many intake gaskets leaking.
Ian
shiden_kai
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote
> V8-6-4-0!
Well, that one is coming back in the trucks.
But, I'm sure that GM's implementation of
the system will be much better this time around.
Ian
Victor Smith
Ok, Ian. I've never had problems with 2.8's (mfi) or 3.1's I've
purchased for me and my kids (but I better talk to my son who's
running a 3.1 and recently told me he's losing coolant).
I'm chalking it up to luck.
You got me scared now, because I'm about to pick out a used
LeSabre for my road car. A 3.8, natch.
What year models *don't* suffer chronic intake leaks?
Thanks,
--Vic
eightupman
"Brad Clarke" <otpyn...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:sqofkvsmqidrhv3ak...@4ax.com...
shiden_kai
"Victor Smith" wrote
> Ok, Ian. I've never had problems with 2.8's (mfi) or 3.1's I've
> purchased for me and my kids (but I better talk to my son who's
> running a 3.1 and recently told me he's losing coolant).
> I'm chalking it up to luck.
> You got me scared now, because I'm about to pick out a used
> LeSabre for my road car. A 3.8, natch.
> What year models *don't* suffer chronic intake leaks?
It's hard to think of one GM vee engine that doesn't eventually
leak oil or coolant from the intake gasket.
1995 seems to be the year that the problem started with
the VIN K 3800. One option would be to buy a supercharged
3800. Even in the GenII format, the supercharged version
doesn't use the plastic intake.
Ian
Canaan Apollyon
"Daniel J. Stern" <red...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.103082...@ns5.vrx.net...
Do you mind giving us some reasons as to why?
kokomoN...@hotmail.com
Generally, the 3.8 is the better of the two. It works reasonably well
and doesn't have the 3.4's coolant-in-the-crankcase problem recently
discussed on this group. The biggest maintenance problem with the
3.8/3800 is that the water pumps are relatively short lived. They are
fairly cheap and fairly easy to install, though.
Where the GM 3.8 really is exceptional is the extent to which it has
been improved over its 42 or so years of existance. It its original
form, it was odd-firing and poorly balanced, and it didn't make very
good power. In two words, it REALLY SUCKED," even by 1961 standards.
The current version is reasonably smooth, has decent power, and gets
very good highway gas mileage for its size. The supercharged version
has very good low-end power.
Daniel
sedan, between 2 and 4 years old, with average mileage for the age. Was
wondering what should I go for.
Daniel
umbl...@cc.umanitoba.ca
>
> "Victor Smith" wrote
>
>> Ok, Ian. I've never had problems with 2.8's (mfi) or 3.1's I've
>> purchased for me and my kids (but I better talk to my son who's
>> running a 3.1 and recently told me he's losing coolant). I'm
>> chalking it up to luck. You got me scared now, because I'm about
>> to pick out a used LeSabre for my road car. A 3.8, natch. What
>> year models *don't* suffer chronic intake leaks?
>
> It's hard to think of one GM vee engine that doesn't eventually
> leak oil or coolant from the intake gasket.
If you are sticking with V6s, surely you can't go wrong with the 4.3?
Dennis
--
null up 129 days, 18:06, 2 users, load average: 0.08, 0.06, 0.07
thruster up 7 days, 11 min, 0 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
scanner up 27 days, 11:31, 0 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
Steve
Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472. :-)
Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.
old dirtbeard
>
>> I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
>> best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
>> can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
>> Any toughts?
>>
>> Daniel
>
>
>
> Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
>
>
Well, actually the current engine that comes
closest to the old v8's is the 4.3L Vortec. It
basically is a Chevy 350 with two cylinders taken
out of the middle, except they now have roller
rockers, roller lifters, cast aluminum oil pans
that bolt into the transmission, balance shaft, a
lot more computing, etc.
I have one in my '03 GMC Savana with a 2,500 lb
payload that got 20.1 MPG on the highway with less
than 2,000 miles on the odometer. It is a very
smooth, very quiet and very torquey (260 lb ft at
a very low 2,800 rpm).
best,
doug
Rob
Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
>>
>> Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.
>>
>
> Well, actually the current engine that comes closest to the old v8's is
> the 4.3L Vortec.
I disagree completely. The 4.3 is a sawed-off small-block Chevy. Note
that *no* Chevrolet-designed engine made my list, and the 4.3 isn't even
a whole Chevy engine.
Just my opinion, but GM completely blew it when they phased out the Olds
and Buick v8s and kept the smallblock shivvy. It was OK up to 327 cubic
inches, but bigger than that it has rods too short for its stroke. But
even as a 283, 302, or 327, the stud-mounted rockers aren't strong
enough, the bearings are too small, they never cast the blocks with
enough nickel in the alloy, the oil return holes in the heads are too
small.... the list is long.
old dirtbeard
Well, by definition, if Chevy never made a good
engine, then clearly the 4.3L cannot be a good engine.
I agree that the old buick v8s were good engines
(I don't have enough experience with the others),
but to say Chevy never made a good engine, well,
you have your right to your own opinion.
The straight six and V8 Chevy's I have been around
were light, reliable, affordable, easy to work on,
and had good output. I have wrenched quite a few
engines, foreign and domestic, and I just don't
see the basis of your beliefs.
But I would be the last person to try to dissuade
you from your opinions.
best,
doug
shiden_kai
<umbl...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote
> If you are sticking with V6s, surely you can't go wrong with the 4.3?
It's no better then a 3800. Plus, you can't get a
4.3 in a Lesabre.
Ian
C. E. White
old dirtbeard wrote:
> The straight six and V8 Chevy's I have been around
> were light, reliable, affordable, easy to work on,
> and had good output. I have wrenched quite a few
> engines, foreign and domestic, and I just don't
> see the basis of your beliefs.
Until recent years, Chevy V-8 were not at al light. The "small block"
Chevy was only light compared to other GM V-8s. It was about 75 lbs
lighter than the Ford FE Big Block and about 75 lbs heavier than a 302
(with similar components). The older Chevy Inline sixes actually weighed
more than a Ford FE Big Block. In later years they got the Inline 6
weight down to a little less than a Ford 302, but they were never
"light."
Ed
Tero Huikko
> old dirtbeard wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
>>>
>>> Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.
>>>
>>
>> Well, actually the current engine that comes closest to the old v8's is
>> the 4.3L Vortec.
>
> I disagree completely. The 4.3 is a sawed-off small-block Chevy. Note
> that *no* Chevrolet-designed engine made my list, and the 4.3 isn't even
> a whole Chevy engine.
Steve's right. 4.3 has nothing even distant to do with real V8 engines.
>
>
> Just my opinion, but GM completely blew it when they phased out the Olds
> and Buick v8s and kept the smallblock shivvy. It was OK up to 327 cubic
> inches, but bigger than that it has rods too short for its stroke. But
> even as a 283, 302, or 327, the stud-mounted rockers aren't strong
> enough, the bearings are too small, they never cast the blocks with
> enough nickel in the alloy, the oil return holes in the heads are too
> small.... the list is long.
Yeah right! A real engine is a '69-'71 Olds 455 rocket with 80cc heads with
larger valves.
Even if it didn't make Steve's list.
-TH
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Daniel J Stern
> but to say Chevy never made a good engine, well,
> you have your right to your own opinion.
> The straight six and V8 Chevy's I have been around
> were light, reliable, affordable, easy to work on,
> and had good output.
...but if you go back to when Oldsmobile still made their own V8s, and
compare (for instance) the Chevrolet 350 to the Olds 350, the Olds is the
absolute hands-down winner in every category from durability to
engineering "rightness" (bearing dimensions, rod ratios, etc.) to
efficiency to ease of service to driveability (even with the strangulation
type emission controls of the day). Same with the Olds 455 vs. Chev 454.
GM would've done much, much better to have standardized on the Olds V8s
rather than the cheaper-to-build Chevrolet items. The current iterations
of the Chevrolet engines are quite advanced, and most of the inherent
engineering faults have been worked around ... but engineered products are
always better when the underlying, basic engineering is sound, and the
Olds V8s were vastly more soundly engineered than their Chevrolet
counterparts.
DS
old dirtbeard
Point well taken, but I thought the thread was
regarding the best "GM V6 engine."
I probably should not have ventured into this
thread, but I thought it was about the best GM V6.
Now the scope is increasing, perhaps, to the best
engine ever, and I would not have proposed a
response to that question as far too many
variables are involved (costs, weights,
efficiency, longevity, maintenance, parts pricing,
etc.).
I thought somebody asked what was the best current
GM V6. My response was the Vortec 4.3. I stand by
that, but I am not ready to compare it to big
block Fords, Packards, or a V12 Ferrari.
If you saw my first post, I said:
> Well, actually the current engine that comes closest to the old v8's is the 4.3L Vortec. It basically is a Chevy 350 with two cylinders taken out of the middle, except they now have roller rockers, roller lifters, cast aluminum oil pans that bolt into the transmission, balance shaft, a lot more computing, etc.
>
> I have one in my '03 GMC Savana with a 2,500 lb payload that got 20.1 MPG on the highway with less than 2,000 miles on the odometer. It is a very smooth, very quiet and very torquey (260 lb ft at a very low 2,800 rpm).
For 2003, I think this is the best V6 that GM
makes. Good power, smooth, good reliability, good
economy, etc. That is all I have stated from the
outset.
best,
doug
Mike Levy
<tero.huikko@nospam@pp.inet.fi> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:53:55 -0500, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>> old dirtbeard wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
>>>>
>>>> Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, actually the current engine that comes closest to the old v8's is
>>> the 4.3L Vortec.
>>
>> I disagree completely. The 4.3 is a sawed-off small-block Chevy. Note
>> that *no* Chevrolet-designed engine made my list, and the 4.3 isn't even
>> a whole Chevy engine.
>
>Steve's right. 4.3 has nothing even distant to do with real V8 engines.
WHAT?!?!?
The 4.3 uses the same bore and stroke as a 350, just with 2 cylinders
taken from each bank. You could most likely buy a set of pistons,
rings and rods for a 350 and use them in a 4.3, they are THAT similar.
The 195 HP version in the S-series could almost be OVER powered for
the size of the truck. Could you substantiate your comment that the
"4.3 has nothing even distant to do with real V-8 engines"?
Just because the 4.3 is a "sawed-off small-block", doesn't take it out
of the running for good V-6 engines. Because of where its design
comes from, it's probably one of the more durable V-6's out there, the
SBC is a tried-and-true design, if it wasn't there wouldn't be more
aftermarket parts on the market for it than any other engine. Heck,
looking at Ford's and Chevy's sites, the 4.0 in the Ranger makes 7
more HP than the most powerful 4.3 (it makes 200 HP in the Silverado,
computer tuning is the difference I believe) listed at
www.gmpowertrain.com Torque-wise, where it matters in a truck, the
4.3 beats the 4.0 by 22 lb.-ft.. Not too bad considering the 4.3 is
15+ years old, with most changes being in the induction system not the
block, not to mention how far back the SBC goes.
Hardpan
Keeps the front end hugging the road doesnt it ? ;)
Hardpan
Well that does it!!
I'm gonna sell my Chevy 200 HP 4.3 Vortec Pickup.
It only has 260,000 miles on the Odo, doesn't use a drop of oil and
runs 60 PSI oil pressure, never had that pan/heads off and the plugs
are spotless and gets 18-20 MPG.
Yeah, I'm convinced now.
This engine really sucks big time !!!!
Vuarra
Why would you recommend the Caddy 472, when the Caddy 500 produced
more power, and had better cyl. heads?
Vuarra
Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound.)
Vuarra
<das...@engin.umich> wrote:
>...but if you go back to when Oldsmobile still made their own V8s, and
>compare (for instance) the Chevrolet 350 to the Olds 350, the Olds is the
>absolute hands-down winner in every category from durability to
>engineering "rightness" (bearing dimensions, rod ratios, etc.) to
>efficiency to ease of service to driveability (even with the strangulation
>type emission controls of the day). Same with the Olds 455 vs. Chev 454.
>GM would've done much, much better to have standardized on the Olds V8s
>rather than the cheaper-to-build Chevrolet items. The current iterations
>of the Chevrolet engines are quite advanced, and most of the inherent
>engineering faults have been worked around ... but engineered products are
>always better when the underlying, basic engineering is sound, and the
>Olds V8s were vastly more soundly engineered than their Chevrolet
>counterparts.
>
>DS
No disagreements here, but the EPA did not prefer the Olds engine when
it came time for emissions checking, which is why the Chevrolet lives
on :(
kokomoN...@hotmail.com
asking about engines used in front-drive cars, not those used in trucks
or out-of-production rear-drive cars. Is that the case, original
poster, if you're still out there?
kokomoN...@hotmail.com
things that are even worse than the substandard stud and half ball
pivots on the Chevy. None of the GM V8's are even close to the '51 to
'58 Chrysler hemis, except that most of the GM engines are lighter.
But back to the post that started this thread, he asked about 3.4 and
3.8 engines, probably indicating an interest in late model GM front
drive cars, not trucks or old cars. That being the case, the 3.8/3800
is probably the answer he was looking for. The 4.3 is a truck engine.
Stephen H. Westin
> > Daniel wrote:
> >
> >> I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
> >> best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
> >> can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
> >> Any toughts?
> >>
> >> Daniel
> > Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
> > Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.
> >
>
> Well, actually the current engine that comes closest to the old v8's
> is the 4.3L Vortec. It basically is a Chevy 350 with two cylinders
> taken out of the middle, except they now have roller rockers, roller
> lifters, cast aluminum oil pans that bolt into the transmission,
> balance shaft, a lot more computing, etc.
Kinda like the 3.8 being a Buick 350 with two cylinders missing and
several decades of development.
<snip>
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Steve
>
> old dirtbeard wrote:
>
>
>>The straight six and V8 Chevy's I have been around
>>were light, reliable, affordable, easy to work on,
>>and had good output. I have wrenched quite a few
>>engines, foreign and domestic, and I just don't
>>see the basis of your beliefs.
>
>
> Until recent years, Chevy V-8 were not at al light. The "small block"
> Chevy was only light compared to other GM V-8s.
The Oldsmobiles were heavy, and STRONG. I've always argued that the big
Oldsmobile would have made the best heavy truck/bus gasoline engine of
anything in the GM family and should have gone into GMC dumptrucks and
flatbeds instead of the Chevy 454. But the Buick v8 was actually fairly
light. IIRC, a Buick 455 wasn't much heavier than a Chevy 350.
Chevy engines do have some good points, but IMO very little of their
good points actually have much to do with engineering design. They're
easy to find parts for. They're cheap to work on because they have HUGE
market penetration, so they're familiar and well-supported by multiple
parts vendors. The basic engineering is sound, but not outstanding
especially when it was pushed to larger displacements than the original
crank-centerline-to-deck dimensions were intended to support, resulting
in the 350 with a borderline rod ratio and the 400 with a HORRIBLE rod
ratio. Even still, they remained acceptably powerful and reliable, so I
can't argue that they're "junk", just that they don't count among "the
best" that detroit offered. By sheer volume of production, the Chevy v8
pushed aside technically superior engines from Buick and Oldsmobile, and
at least equivalent designs from Pontiac (although Pontiacs had enough
weaknesses to rule them out of 'the best' category also). That's really
my only gripe with them.
Steve
> No disagreements here, but the EPA did not prefer the Olds engine when
> it came time for emissions checking, which is why the Chevrolet lives
> on :(
>
>
You've got cause and effect backward there. GM poured far more resources
into improving the emissions of the Chevrolet engine than it did the
Olds, Pointiac, and Buick because the writing was on the wall that there
would be no need for 3 different identical-displacement v8s in the 80s
and 90s (heck, Ford and Chrysler moved to corporate engines back in the
50s, it amazes me that divisional in-fighting among the GM divisions
managed to keep multiple engine plants going as long as it did!) GM
still doesn't really have a corporate engine- the Gen III v8s are
basically Chevrolet as are the 3400 and 4.3 Vortec v6, the Northstar was
intended to become the 'corporate' engine (and someday actually might)
but basically developed from the Cadillac engine program, Buick still
makes the 3800, and IIRC Pontiac lingers on in charge of the 4-cylinder.
But back to the Olds v8... there's no reason whatsoever that the Olds
could not have been made just as clean as the Chevy if GM hadn't ramped
down on new engineering for it starting in the late 70s or early 80s
with the intent of economizing on engine overhead by standardizing on a
single v8. They had already picked the Chevrolet years before the Olds
was phased out completely in the early 90s. The Chevy lives on strictly
because GM had more production capacity for it than for the Olds engine
and it was cheaper per unit to build. The greater production capacity
for the Chevy was why some Chevy 350s started appearing in Buicks and
Oldsmobiles back in the late 70s. When Buick and Olds buyers found out
and got mad about it, GM had to start adding that famous "engines for
this vehicle supplied by various GM divisions.." disclaimer.
This is much the same fate as the Chrysler slant-6 met. Although it
could have been modernized and- who knows- even made into a 180-200 HP
fuel-injected "Magnum" version in the 90s, its fate was sealed back
around 1980 when all improvements were stopped in favor of developing
the 3.9L v6 that could be built sharing much of the same tooling as the
318 v8 for purely economic reasons. And great was our loss- the 3.9
never amounted to much at all other than a footnote as the base Ram
engine and the middle-option Dakota engine that practically nobody
picked because the 5.2 (318) had more power and virtually the same economy.
Steve
>
> ...but if you go back to when Oldsmobile still made their own V8s, and
> compare (for instance) the Chevrolet 350 to the Olds 350, the Olds is the
> absolute hands-down winner in every category from durability to
> engineering "rightness" (bearing dimensions, rod ratios, etc.) to
> efficiency to ease of service to driveability (even with the strangulation
> type emission controls of the day). Same with the Olds 455 vs. Chev 454.
> GM would've done much, much better to have standardized on the Olds V8s
I mostly agree, although I prefer the short stroke/big bore layout of
the Buick 455 to the Olds 455 for car applications. The Olds 455 is
God's own definition of torque and would have been a superb heavy truck
engine and certainly was great in all those Olds 98s that weighed more
than your average flatbed truck, but I give the nod to the Buick for
midsize cars and performance applications. Not intended in any way as a
slight against the Olds H/O and 442s out there, but the Buick GSX does
hold slightly better performance numbers, especially in Stage II or
Stage III trim.
> rather than the cheaper-to-build Chevrolet items. The current iterations
> of the Chevrolet engines are quite advanced, and most of the inherent
> engineering faults have been worked around
Not to mention that the current Gen III engines have virtually NOTHING
in common with the original small-block Chevy anymore.
Robert Hancock
Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, and (in Europe) Opel are using it,
and Saab was also involved in the design.
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:V4ucnbKvk4-...@texas.net...
Vuarra
<hanc...@nospamshaw.ca> wrote:
>The Ecotec 4-cylinder is probably their first true global/corporate engine:
>Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, and (in Europe) Opel are using it,
>and Saab was also involved in the design.
And none of the above are really happy with it :-/
John
> I had the same information, quoted on rec.autos.tech some time ago,
> which said the 3.4 was the best ever.
>
> All the V6's, from 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.4DOHC, and 3.8 have some
> drawbacks. I think that most of the problems can be solved or avoided
> if you are going to rebuild.
>
>
> The 3.8 or 3800 is pretty good however. I have no information higher
> CID V6's.
>
I've run my own repair shop for some time, and I dread when I see the
3.4L engine come into the shop. It's a good running motor, for 100-150k
miles... but what a nightmare to work on. Have fun replacing a simple
alternator!!
-J
Daniel
out shopping for a used GM
sedan, between 2 and 4 years old, with average mileage for the age. Was
wondering what should I go for. Didn`t know then 3.6 was also an engine
option!
Definitely interested in a V6. Probably not a 4 banger.
This discussion got a lot of attention !
Daniel
<kokomoN...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F4B43...@hotmail.com...
kc8adu
early 90's
funny trying to explain to a neighbor that his chevy caprice has an olds
motor!
in this neigborhood mine is the only one with the correct motor to match the
name.and with 335k on it it still shows no signs of dieing.
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:V4ucnbKvk4-...@texas.net...
Neo
> into improving the emissions of the Chevrolet engine than it did the
> Olds, Pointiac, and Buick because the writing was on the wall that there
> would be no need for 3 different identical-displacement v8s in the 80s
> and 90s
Yep, when submitting an engine for EPA-compliance started clocking at
a few of million bucks a pop. And knowing that the rules would be
ever changing, the need to keep the number of engines down and only
those with lower upgrade cost was a business decision accroding to the
rules of the game.
Don't you just love your government in action?
Stephen H. Westin
Well, Japan took the opposite approach: they just specified the
end-point emission standards and demanded a step decrease in
emissions. I always thought that that would never have flown in the
U.S., but would actually have been easier on the manufacturers in the
long run.
kokomoN...@hotmail.com
>
> This is much the same fate as the Chrysler slant-6 met. Although it
> could have been modernized and- who knows- even made into a 180-200 HP
> fuel-injected "Magnum" version in the 90s, its fate was sealed back
> around 1980 when all improvements were stopped in favor of developing
> the 3.9L v6 that could be built sharing much of the same tooling as the
> 318 v8 for purely economic reasons. And great was our loss- the 3.9
> never amounted to much at all other than a footnote as the base Ram
> engine and the middle-option Dakota engine that practically nobody
> picked because the 5.2 (318) had more power and virtually the same economy.
Actually, the 3.9 is by far the highest volume engine in the Dakota. I
agree, though, that the engine is nothing special.
kokomoN...@hotmail.com
>
> The Ecotec 4-cylinder is probably their first true global/corporate engine:
> Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, and (in Europe) Opel are using it,
> and Saab was also involved in the design.
>
The 1.8/2.0 4-cylinder that was used in Sunbird was also a GM global
engine of Opel origin.
shiden_kai
<kokomoN...@hotmail.com> wrote
> The 1.8/2.0 4-cylinder that was used in Sunbird was also a GM global
> engine of Opel origin.
Thank goodness they dropped that piece of shit!
We have another "Opel" engine kicking around in
the Cadillac Catera and then new CTS. These are
the nastiest engines ever designed. A belt driven
interference engine that leaks, throws belts, has
poor power....and is just crazy to work on.
The sooner this engine is gone, the better.
Ian
kokomoN...@hotmail.com
>
> <kokomoN...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > The 1.8/2.0 4-cylinder that was used in Sunbird was also a GM global
> > engine of Opel origin.
>
> Thank goodness they dropped that piece of shit!
Yep, I agree. Way too many of them cracked heads.
>
> We have another "Opel" engine kicking around in
> the Cadillac Catera and then new CTS. These are
> the nastiest engines ever designed. A belt driven
> interference engine that leaks, throws belts, has
> poor power....and is just crazy to work on.
>
Other than that, how is the engine used in the CTS? It is on the way
out, BTW. The new automatic CTS's have a different engine, and the
manuals will eventually. Time will tell if the new engine is a big
improvement. I think it is a "shortstar," a Cadillac northstar with two
cylinders chopped off.
Steve
The sooner the whole dang butt-ugly CTS is gone, the better. What a pile
of excrement that thing is... and on so MANY levels...
Clem
Yikes!
I've heard it causes absolutely no problems... mines been doing it since I
bought it in 1995 with 69k miles on it.... It's now over 200k miles and it
still slaps away.... but she'll still bury the 110MPH speedo.
My '87 Caravan's 2.2 also has massive piston slap.... 235k miles and she's
still going strong.
Piston slap will eventually "oval" out the bottom of the cylinder bore.
Other than that, I've heard of nothing else that makes me think piston slap
is anything detrimental to longevity.
"eightupman" <eight...@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
news:3PV1b.12494$r15.7...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> yeppers...1994 Pontiac Grand Am.
>
> "Brad Clarke" <otpyn...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
> news:sqofkvsmqidrhv3ak...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:49:10 GMT, "eightupman"
> > <eight...@hotmailnospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>I have a neighbor with a 3.1 and there is 297,000 miles on the motor.
> > >>FACTORY MOTOR, NOT REBUILT. It runs like a champ. It leaks oil out
of
> the
> > >>valve covers, but no noises or anything. And these are true hihway
> miles.
> > >>and hour and a half drive to and from work every day for 2 years.
> > >>Anything will last if you keep up with the oil changes and other
routine
> > >>maintenance.
> > Must be a pre 1999 car.
> >
> > The 3.1L engine from 1999 onward are prone to a problem known as piston
> > slap. Mine only lasted 46,000 kms before GM had to put a new engine in
> > my car.
> >
> > Brad
>
>
Clem
My 13 year old 3.1 has over 200k miles and it still leaves black marks when
you want to.
"Daniel" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:yAf2b.7890$6g....@charlie.risq.qc.ca...
> Sure. The reason for my question: I plan to go out shopping for a used GM
> sedan, between 2 and 4 years old, with average mileage for the age. Was
> wondering what should I go for.
>
> Daniel
>
>
Brad Clarke
<mygodistherea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Piston slap means you must replace the engine?
Piston replacment as a minimum...new engine as a worst case.
>>Yikes!
>>
>>I've heard it causes absolutely no problems...
Rough idle, increased oil consumption, less power, sounds really noisy
at start up.
In my case, the pistons were still "slapping" 5 minutes after the engine
was started.
>>Piston slap will eventually "oval" out the bottom of the cylinder bore.
>>Other than that, I've heard of nothing else that makes me think piston slap
>>is anything detrimental to longevity.
Dunno. With mine, the slapping gouged two of the cylinder walls.
- Mr.C.J.-
<mygodistherea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lol... no. He means why is the 3.1 and 3.4 junk?
>
>My 13 year old 3.1 has over 200k miles and it still leaves black marks...
around the exhaust tips?...
- Mr.C.J. - S.T.P. - B.H.C. - S.O. - STALKER ORIGINAL -
"...that i could get sold, rolled, and cornholed for
a negotiable price!" - Pilot
shiden_kai
<kokomoN...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Other than that, how is the engine used in the CTS? It is on the way
> out, BTW. The new automatic CTS's have a different engine, and the
> manuals will eventually. Time will tell if the new engine is a big
> improvement. I think it is a "shortstar," a Cadillac northstar with two
> cylinders chopped off.
No, as far as I can tell, it's not based on the Cadillac engine. It
is all aluminum, which the older engine wasn't. It does use timing
chains (thank goodness) and it's just too new to say anything
about it yet.
Plus, the Corvette engine is available in the 2004 CTS. That
will be nice. Probably not to work on, but good power.
Ian
Steve
>
> My '87 Caravan's 2.2 also has massive piston slap.... 235k miles and she's
> still going strong.
Are you sure its piston slap? Chrysler 2.2 and 2.5 engines are known for
a lot of wrist-pin noise (also harmless), but less so for piston slap.
Neo
> I think it is a "shortstar," a Cadillac northstar with two
> cylinders chopped off.
Not really. The "shortstar", the 3.5 DOHC V6 that dies with
Oldsmobile had a 90 degree V, like the Northstar. However, the new
3.6 DOHC V6 has a 60 degree V. It's totally new, the 1st member of a
new family of V6 engines that should range from 2.8 to 3.9, normally
aspirated, turbo and bi-turbo.
Clem
I think you're right. I mixed up the 2. Thanks.
My '90 Grand Prix has had piston slap (I assume) since I got it. I used to
think it was just the sound of the oil pump working. But I read about the
slap and assume that is what's happening in my grand prix.
Honestly, I can't believe piston slap doesn't harm anything. But I've read
about it being harmless in more than one instance. Granted, one instance was
in a small engine repair manual (Briggs and Stratton).
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:A-qdnX8kBai...@texas.net...
Clem
But really, she's still as strong as the day I got 'er. A bit more loose in
the suspension and feel for the "Pontiac performance", but she'll go like
mad (trashed motor mounts and all)
"- Mr.C.J.-" <C_e_e_j_e_6...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:42uskvgnvmimulcoi...@4ax.com...
Steve
> Aha!
>
> I think you're right. I mixed up the 2. Thanks.
>
> My '90 Grand Prix has had piston slap (I assume) since I got it. I used to
> think it was just the sound of the oil pump working. But I read about the
> slap and assume that is what's happening in my grand prix.
>
> Honestly, I can't believe piston slap doesn't harm anything. But I've read
> about it being harmless in more than one instance. Granted, one instance was
> in a small engine repair manual (Briggs and Stratton).
>
I think its one of those things where there's sort of a cliff you can
fall off of. Just the right amount of piston clearance, and all is
quiet. A few thousandths looser, and its noisy as heck but not damaging
(happens to any piston with forged pistons when cold, for example, and
is why almost no maker uses forged pistons except in high-performance
applications). A few more thousandths, and the noise doesn't sound any
worse but the cylinders and pistons get chewed up much much faster.
PAROADHOG
I could never understand why these 2.2s and 2.5s have so much more pin noise
than other similarly designed engines. Anyone have an answer ?
Elias Rocha
like to know because my car (a "chevrolet" astra) has the 1.8 ecotec (code Z
18 XE) engine and is good to know before something happens.
Thanks
Elias Rocha
"shiden_kai" <violet-lighte...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:tne3b.67481$K44.25275@edtnps84...
shiden_kai
"Elias Rocha" wrote
> I have a question. The Ecotec engines are of interference design? I would
> like to know because my car (a "chevrolet" astra) has the 1.8 ecotec (code
Z
> 18 XE) engine and is good to know before something happens.
I'm not sure what car or engine you are referring to here?
It sounds as though your engine has a belt driven cam. That
is not the case with the 2.2 EcoTec engines. In any case, other
then the v-6 belt driven engine in the Cadillac Catera's, there
are "no" GM belt driven engines that are interference.
In the case of the chain driven engines, yes, most of them
are interference engines, but the failure rate of cam chains
is so low that it's not worth worrying about.
Ian
Elias Rocha
engines must be related so I hope the engine is not of interference, I don“t
know but believe that the engine is belt driven.
The 2.2 Ecotec of the Astra is the same of the Cavalier only, in the Astra
makes 145Hp and the 1.8 makes 125Hp. the engine codes (Opel) are: for the
2.2 -Z 22 SE- and the 1.8 -Z 18 XE-, if I can find more info I“ll post it
This are the specifications for both engines in the Astra manual
http://www.avantel.net/~eliasrd/specs.jpg
Elias Rocha
"shiden_kai" <violet-lighte...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:8j54b.110820$K44.76405@edtnps84...
shiden_kai
"Elias Rocha" wrote
> The car is a Opel Astra but is sold in Mexico as a Chevrolet, The two
> engines must be related so I hope the engine is not of interference, I
don´t
> know but believe that the engine is belt driven.
The Ecotec engine in the Cavalier is not belt driven. GM does not
use belt driven engines anymore, except the dumbass Opel engine
in the Cadillac Catera/CTS and that will be gone soon. Oh yeah,
we will be getting a new Sprint type car soon....(Daewoo, I think)
and it will no doubt have belt driven engines....but that's about it.
Ian
William H. Bowen
>
>Kinda like the 3.8 being a Buick 350 with two cylinders missing and
>several decades of development.
>
><snip>
Actually, it is the other way around. The 3.8 V-6 was a derivation of
the 215 CID aluminum V-8 that Buick and Olds used in the F-85 and the
Special from '61-63. In it's ogiginal configuration it was odd-fire
and 198 CID (3.3L).
The tooling and design of the aluminum V-8 was sold to the Brits and
used by Rover until just recently (highly modified, of course).
In 1964 when GM went to the larger "A" body Buick developed the
300/330 V-8 - iron block and heads, basically the V-6 with 2 cylinders
added back in. That engine was used through the 1967 model year when
Buick developed the last series of V-8s they would do: the 350 /
430-455 family. A lot of changes where made (like stud rocker pivots
instead of the aluminum rockers on a steel shaft used in the 300/330 -
I HATED those damn things, but did make a bunch of money over the
years rebuilding the valve train in those engines).
GM used the V-6 in some cars through 1966 but converted to using the
Chevy inline 6 in the "A" body cars (rumor was they did not want to
spend the $$ to work on emissions compliance for both the Chevy I-6
and the Buick V-6, and since the Chevy engine was cheaper to build and
also used in more lines than the Buick, the Buick V-6 lost out). After
sitting on the shelf for a couple of years, GM sold the design /
tooling of the V-6 to Kaiser-Jeep, which American Motors bought in
1970. The engine was used in a lot of Jeeps in the 70s, but GM needed
a V-6 for the Monza / Shyhawk / Omega in the mid-70s (engine
compartment would not take an inline 6 and the Vega-based 4 was too
wimpy and being phased out for the Pontiac "Iron Duke" 4) so they
bought the V-6 back from AMC. Most of you know the rest of the story
- engine converted to even-fire, etc.
Of the first-generation 3.8s, the best of the bunch (in my humble
opinion) is the FWD 1986-1987 "C" motor: fuel injection, DIS ignition
and roller lifters. GM used that engine in mostly "C", "H" and "E"
body cars (except Cadillac). As time has gone on the engine has been
"improved" but has gone backwards in some ways, witness the intake
manifold problems in recent years.
But if someone had to pin me down to the best of the CURRENT GM V-6s,
I's still take a 3.8 over anything else GM makes in a V-6 (and my
LEAST favorite would be a tie between the 3.4 and the 3.5
"ShortStar").
Regards,
Bill Bowen
Sacramento, CA
kokomoN...@hotmail.com
>
> westin*nos...@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote:
>
> >
> >Kinda like the 3.8 being a Buick 350 with two cylinders missing and
> >several decades of development.
> >
> ><snip>
>
> Actually, it is the other way around. The 3.8 V-6 was a derivation of
> the 215 CID aluminum V-8 that Buick and Olds used in the F-85 and the
> Special from '61-63. In it's ogiginal configuration it was odd-fire
> and 198 CID (3.3L).
The original uneven firing Buick 3.8 (331) V6 started production at
about the same time as the 215CID aluminum V8, which was 1961 model
year. The V6 was NOT derived from the aluminum V8. It was derived from
a bigger, iron V8.
Lee Richardson
changed to stamped steel instead of aluminum. But they were still on a
steel shaft. The steel shaft is much better than the fragile pedestal mount
rockers used in most other engines. The 350 Buick had more in common with
big block wedge 350 - 440 Mopar than most other GM engines. Features such
as the rocker shafts, deep skirt block on the 350, external oil pump and
front mounted distributor. Buick did cheap out and made the oil pump
integral with the aluminum front cover, vs. Mopar with a detachable pump.
They also used an integral intake manifold that served as the tappet cover,
whereas Mopar had the better separate intake that left an air gap between
the block and it.
kokomoN...@hotmail.com
>
> westin*nos...@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote:
>
> >
> >Kinda like the 3.8 being a Buick 350 with two cylinders missing and
> >several decades of development.
> >
> ><snip>
>
> Actually, it is the other way around. The 3.8 V-6 was a derivation of
> the 215 CID aluminum V-8 that Buick and Olds used in the F-85 and the
> Special from '61-63. In it's ogiginal configuration it was odd-fire
> and 198 CID (3.3L).
The original uneven firing Buick 3.8 (231) V6 started production at
opieta...@webtv.net
GM's best engine: 3.4 or 3.8 ?
Group: rec.autos.tech Date: Sat, Aug 23, 2003, 12:55am (EDT+4) From:
nos...@nospam.com (Daniel)
>I was quoted once with GM's engine that
>was (one of it's) most reliable, best >choice
>overall ( considering reliability, power, >gas
>mileage, etc) I can't recall if it was the >3.4
>or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
>Any toughts?<
To return to your original question, none of the engines you mention
are particularly unreliable. But the 3800 is by far the best of that
stable. The 3400 will last a lot of miles, but those miles will be
more pleasant with the 3800. It only has about 20 horsepower more than
the 34, but it delivers a much stronger torque curve. Reliability and
milage are not significantly different between them. But the "fun
factor" is with the 3800. (if you want "real" durability, find an
old Chysler slant 6)
Steve
> The 350 - 430/455 had the steel rocker shafts, and in '73 the rockers
> changed to stamped steel instead of aluminum. But they were still on a
> steel shaft. The steel shaft is much better than the fragile pedestal mount
> rockers used in most other engines.
Careful there. Most other Chevy and Ford engines... Caddy, Olds,
Pontiac, and Mopar all favored shaft-mounted rockers. Much better
valvetrain stability than studs. My biggest gripe with the "Magnum"
version of the Chrysler LA smallblock v8 used from 1992-present is that
it uses a stud-mounted rocker train that derives from the AMC v8 engines
rather than the classic Mopar shaft rockers. To its credit, the AMC
design is stouter and maintains better rocker alignment than the Ford
and Chevy ball-stud design.
> The 350 Buick had more in common with
> big block wedge 350 - 440 Mopar than most other GM engines. Features such
> as the rocker shafts, deep skirt block on the 350, external oil pump and
> front mounted distributor. Buick did cheap out and made the oil pump
> integral with the aluminum front cover, vs. Mopar with a detachable pump.
> They also used an integral intake manifold that served as the tappet cover,
> whereas Mopar had the better separate intake that left an air gap between
> the block and it.
Don't forget the other more important similarity. Buick, like Mopar,
maintained a very good rod length/stroke ratio even in the 455. The
other big GMs (and small Chevies) have short rods that make for bigger
side-loads on the pistons and cylinder walls, and also produce a wierd
non-sinusoidal piston motion that puts a load spike on the connecting
rod at high rpms. Thats why the classic way a small chevy throws a rod
is up and out the side of the block, whereas most other engines (on the
rare occasions that they throw a rod at all) usually spit it down
through the oil pan.
Daniel
<Fiew that was a long discussion. Thanks for our input.
Daniel
William H. Bowen
Hate to burst your bubble, but you are wrong on both counts. The
215CID aluminum V-8 was introduced when the Special and F-85 where
intreoduced in the fall of 1960 as 1961 models. The V-6 did not come
on line until the fall of 1961 for the 1962 model year.
As to the derivation of the V-6, all you have to do is look at the two
engines (and the other GM V-8 engines of the same era) to tell at a
glance that the V-6 WAS derived from the 215CID design (besides the
fact that I had an uncle that worked at Buick at the time and drove
one of the prototypes and told me what was going on at the time).
kokomoN...@hotmail.com
production for the 61 model year IN THE BUICK SPECIAL, and in the F85
the next year. The 215 V-8 was the only engine in the '61 F-85.
Also, the 215 and the V-6 don't look at all alike. The 215's valve
covers are angled at about 45 degrees like the top of the block, while
the V-6 in question has valve covers parallel to the ground. The 215 is
related to the V-6 only in that they were both made by GM.
kokomoN...@hotmail.com
The 215 and the V-6 don't look at all alike. The valve covers are at
different angles, etc. The V-6 DOES look like a family of iron Buick
V-6's made in various sizes, the most common being about 355CID. Maybe
the V-6 came first, or maybe the 8, but they definitely look related.
Eric
Buick typically always used a shaft mechanism, as Chevy used pedestals.
Buick used front mounted distributor long before the 350, Also the 350 bore
and stoke was different then the chevy 350.
"Lee Richardson" <mech...@sigecom.net> wrote in message
news:3f522414_2@newsfeed...
Eric
the 3.8L V6. If you work out the math the 3.8 L V6 was not to the Buick 350
(5.7L), but the 225 was 2 less cyl than to the 300 engine. The 225 was an
all cast iron engine. It was the 300 engine minus 2 cylinders. This was a
very good engine from the start. They were compared to the Chevy 283 for
long lasting. It was also used in the Willys Jeeps. The 300 engine used
alumium heads, and it came in model with 11:1 compression. The 225 V6 was
the V6 that was used until around 67. The 198 all aluminum Engine just saw
2/3years.
--
Regards,
Eric McClatchie (er...@mcclatchies.com)
"William H. Bowen" <bow...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gbh5lv8tedbvfrpbf...@4ax.com...