Could the 3800 remain competitive w/modern tech?
- Thread starter redhat
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
.... Well, along came an ambulance chasing attorney
That's not ambulance chasing, it was outright fraud on the purchasers, regardless of the alleged benefit.
People have a right to know what they are purchasing. If it's such a great change, why not just tell them in the first place and let them make their own decision?
That was back in the day when the GM V8s were still different. I agree with full disclosure.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
.... Well, along came an ambulance chasing attorney
That's not ambulance chasing, it was outright fraud on the purchasers, regardless of the alleged benefit.
People have a right to know what they are purchasing. If it's such a great change, why not just tell them in the first place and let them make their own decision?
That was back in the day when the GM V8s were still different. I agree with full disclosure.
What do rear disc brakes get you in most cars other than more complication?
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing.. Also won't look at anything that has rear drum brakes.
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing.. Also won't look at anything that has rear drum brakes.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
What do rear disc brakes get you in most cars other than more complication?
When engineered right (with a separate parking brake in the rotor hat), rear disc brakes are far easier to service than drums are. I've done 3 or 4 brake services on vehicles with rear drums, and prefer rear discs to every single one of them.
I guess I'd even prefer rear discs that use the pads for the parking brake, and require the special tool to screw the piston back in. Discs are typically lighter than drums and offer lower unsprung mass and lower rotating mass.
I think the level of complication is much less with discs than with drums.
What do rear disc brakes get you in most cars other than more complication?
When engineered right (with a separate parking brake in the rotor hat), rear disc brakes are far easier to service than drums are. I've done 3 or 4 brake services on vehicles with rear drums, and prefer rear discs to every single one of them.
I guess I'd even prefer rear discs that use the pads for the parking brake, and require the special tool to screw the piston back in. Discs are typically lighter than drums and offer lower unsprung mass and lower rotating mass.
I think the level of complication is much less with discs than with drums.
Originally Posted By: route66mike
About all the weight/power/shape differences between the old 3.8L and GM's new 3.6L, the simplicity of the 3.8 wins in a lot of applications. Trucks were mentioned, and around the world the 3800 is a perfect size/simplicity combination. Problem with the new 3.6 is complexity and expense to manufacture. 3.8L is easier to work on, which benefits anyone, especially third-world country buyers.
Also remember much is made about comparing the Corvette/CadillacCTS-V's latest V8s with other V8s and boosted large V6s globally, and the size/packaging/small-heads of the pushrod V8 often wins. Same comparo can be made 3.8L-3.6L. Also look at the raging debate over the GM 5.3L V8 vs. Ford's Ecoboost 3.5L V6, some want the simplicity and reliability of less parts count on the V8, and both deliver similar power.
Agree 100% There is a lot to be said for the old pushrod 2v engine. There are few engines built that are as reliable as the 3800 and a few others, the LS engines are doing well too.
Engines like the 3800, old MB diesels, some old Toyota engines, etc are not what they want you to have, you can drive the car till the body drops away and not worry about the engine longevity.
After the warranty is up the whiz bang tech can be a nightmare at $100+ an hour labor charges.
The Gee whiz stuff now isn't looking so good anymore, its looking more like a major expensive PITA.
About all the weight/power/shape differences between the old 3.8L and GM's new 3.6L, the simplicity of the 3.8 wins in a lot of applications. Trucks were mentioned, and around the world the 3800 is a perfect size/simplicity combination. Problem with the new 3.6 is complexity and expense to manufacture. 3.8L is easier to work on, which benefits anyone, especially third-world country buyers.
Also remember much is made about comparing the Corvette/CadillacCTS-V's latest V8s with other V8s and boosted large V6s globally, and the size/packaging/small-heads of the pushrod V8 often wins. Same comparo can be made 3.8L-3.6L. Also look at the raging debate over the GM 5.3L V8 vs. Ford's Ecoboost 3.5L V6, some want the simplicity and reliability of less parts count on the V8, and both deliver similar power.
Agree 100% There is a lot to be said for the old pushrod 2v engine. There are few engines built that are as reliable as the 3800 and a few others, the LS engines are doing well too.
Engines like the 3800, old MB diesels, some old Toyota engines, etc are not what they want you to have, you can drive the car till the body drops away and not worry about the engine longevity.
After the warranty is up the whiz bang tech can be a nightmare at $100+ an hour labor charges.
The Gee whiz stuff now isn't looking so good anymore, its looking more like a major expensive PITA.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
What do rear disc brakes get you in most cars other than more complication?
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing.. Also won't look at anything that has rear drum brakes.
They don't fade as fast when you're doing laps at Road America, lol.
I agree, most "daily driver" cars don't need them.
What do rear disc brakes get you in most cars other than more complication?
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing.. Also won't look at anything that has rear drum brakes.
They don't fade as fast when you're doing laps at Road America, lol.
I agree, most "daily driver" cars don't need them.
The GM High Value engines ARE the future of where the 3800 came from; first pushrod engines with VVT, they fixed the internal leaks (although they leak externally still). The LZ9 3.9L V-6 is only .1 L less than the 3800 and makes the same power as the supercharged 3800.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The GM High Value engines ARE the future of where the 3800 came from; first pushrod engines with VVT, they fixed the internal leaks (although they leak externally still). The LZ9 3.9L V-6 is only .1 L less than the 3800 and makes the same power as the supercharged 3800.
GM High Value engines have a different lineage than the Buick V6. Buick V6 started life as the Fireball V6 in 1961, and the GM High Values trace back to the 1980 2.8L LE2 V6.
The GM High Value engines ARE the future of where the 3800 came from; first pushrod engines with VVT, they fixed the internal leaks (although they leak externally still). The LZ9 3.9L V-6 is only .1 L less than the 3800 and makes the same power as the supercharged 3800.
GM High Value engines have a different lineage than the Buick V6. Buick V6 started life as the Fireball V6 in 1961, and the GM High Values trace back to the 1980 2.8L LE2 V6.
Originally Posted By: stickybuns
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The GM High Value engines ARE the future of where the 3800 came from; first pushrod engines with VVT, they fixed the internal leaks (although they leak externally still). The LZ9 3.9L V-6 is only .1 L less than the 3800 and makes the same power as the supercharged 3800.
GM High Value engines have a different lineage than the Buick V6. Buick V6 started life as the Fireball V6 in 1961, and the GM High Values trace back to the 1980 2.8L LE2 V6.
Thanks for the clarification!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_60-Degree_V6_engine
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The GM High Value engines ARE the future of where the 3800 came from; first pushrod engines with VVT, they fixed the internal leaks (although they leak externally still). The LZ9 3.9L V-6 is only .1 L less than the 3800 and makes the same power as the supercharged 3800.
GM High Value engines have a different lineage than the Buick V6. Buick V6 started life as the Fireball V6 in 1961, and the GM High Values trace back to the 1980 2.8L LE2 V6.
Thanks for the clarification!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_60-Degree_V6_engine
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: kschachn
What do rear disc brakes get you in most cars other than more complication?
When engineered right (with a separate parking brake in the rotor hat), rear disc brakes are far easier to service than drums are. I've done 3 or 4 brake services on vehicles with rear drums, and prefer rear discs to every single one of them.
I guess I'd even prefer rear discs that use the pads for the parking brake, and require the special tool to screw the piston back in. Discs are typically lighter than drums and offer lower unsprung mass and lower rotating mass.
I think the level of complication is much less with discs than with drums.
I haven't touched the "drum in rotor hat" (yet) but I thought servicing the rear discs on my Jetta were easy. Every five years, replace pads rotors and calipers--don't even need the windup tool, given how it's a weak spot on the MkIV's. Winding in wasn't that bad, on the pistons that were not siezed. I would just reinstall the caliper, sans rotor, using the pins to hold the caliper in place. Then you can spin it in.
[Now I've read that Ford(?) uses two different rotations on the piston, one side is clockwise and the other counter-clockwise, now that I'd find real annoying.]
Rear discs aren't necessary but they seem easier to work on. Which is good as in my experience they wear pads faster. So maybe I oughta rank it as some sort of even trade I guess.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
What do rear disc brakes get you in most cars other than more complication?
When engineered right (with a separate parking brake in the rotor hat), rear disc brakes are far easier to service than drums are. I've done 3 or 4 brake services on vehicles with rear drums, and prefer rear discs to every single one of them.
I guess I'd even prefer rear discs that use the pads for the parking brake, and require the special tool to screw the piston back in. Discs are typically lighter than drums and offer lower unsprung mass and lower rotating mass.
I think the level of complication is much less with discs than with drums.
I haven't touched the "drum in rotor hat" (yet) but I thought servicing the rear discs on my Jetta were easy. Every five years, replace pads rotors and calipers--don't even need the windup tool, given how it's a weak spot on the MkIV's. Winding in wasn't that bad, on the pistons that were not siezed. I would just reinstall the caliper, sans rotor, using the pins to hold the caliper in place. Then you can spin it in.
[Now I've read that Ford(?) uses two different rotations on the piston, one side is clockwise and the other counter-clockwise, now that I'd find real annoying.]
Rear discs aren't necessary but they seem easier to work on. Which is good as in my experience they wear pads faster. So maybe I oughta rank it as some sort of even trade I guess.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing..
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I will remember that next time I pass you in my LS1 Trans Am or Supercharged Grand Prix.
This has to take the cake for stupidest things uttered on Bob is the Oil Guy. Thanks for my Friday Laugh... Enjoy your weekend.
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing..
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I will remember that next time I pass you in my LS1 Trans Am or Supercharged Grand Prix.
This has to take the cake for stupidest things uttered on Bob is the Oil Guy. Thanks for my Friday Laugh... Enjoy your weekend.
Honestly, what I never understood was that years after GM introduced the LS-series engines, they never decided to create a V6 version by cutting off 2 cylinders, as they did with the 4.3 V6.
I think the #1 reason engine architectures get cancelled is smog. Sometimes to pass smog, an engine's entire architecture might have to be changed. Ever read the documentary about how Chrysler made the AMC 258 into the Jeep 4.0? The engine had to be redesigned for a wider bore to help compensate for a shorter stroke. The cylinder heads also had to be completely different. That might not be economical in all situations. Other times, an old engine design can pass smog, but only by adding an air pump, precats, EGR, a compromised cam profile, and more stuff. Having all that extra stuff might be more expensive than an engine that creates low smog right from the combustion chamber. Next, there would be the concern that the way the engine handles heat would be a problem, as uniform temperatures are important to prevent HC from the cold places and NOx from the high places. Some engines now have multiple coolant pats in the cylinder head and block to improve this.
Combustion chamber design may have hurt the possibility of a newer 3800. Wedge OHV engines are cheaper to build than canted and Hemi OHV heads, would it be too expensive to replace the wedge heads of the 3800 with canted valve heads? Would the shape of the lifter valley and the height of the lifter to the rocker arm be too high to allow changing pushrod geometry?
Another thing the 3800 faced was the price of superchargers. They typically cost more than turbos, and they might both be more expensive than a new DOHC engine.
In some countries, cars are taxed by engine displacement. In those cases, having a dense HP/L is critical to the success of a car. Selling one engine to North America, and a different engine to Europe might not be the most cost effective idea.
I like the GM 3800 engine, but I can see why it may have been eliminated.
Also, some of GM's DOHC engines used during the production of the 3800 weren't all that great. People tell me they don't miss the 3.4 DOHC that GM used in the 1990s Chevy Lumina which wasn't much more powerful than a later generation 3800. Making a DOHC engine may have been considered too much of a risk.
I think the #1 reason engine architectures get cancelled is smog. Sometimes to pass smog, an engine's entire architecture might have to be changed. Ever read the documentary about how Chrysler made the AMC 258 into the Jeep 4.0? The engine had to be redesigned for a wider bore to help compensate for a shorter stroke. The cylinder heads also had to be completely different. That might not be economical in all situations. Other times, an old engine design can pass smog, but only by adding an air pump, precats, EGR, a compromised cam profile, and more stuff. Having all that extra stuff might be more expensive than an engine that creates low smog right from the combustion chamber. Next, there would be the concern that the way the engine handles heat would be a problem, as uniform temperatures are important to prevent HC from the cold places and NOx from the high places. Some engines now have multiple coolant pats in the cylinder head and block to improve this.
Combustion chamber design may have hurt the possibility of a newer 3800. Wedge OHV engines are cheaper to build than canted and Hemi OHV heads, would it be too expensive to replace the wedge heads of the 3800 with canted valve heads? Would the shape of the lifter valley and the height of the lifter to the rocker arm be too high to allow changing pushrod geometry?
Another thing the 3800 faced was the price of superchargers. They typically cost more than turbos, and they might both be more expensive than a new DOHC engine.
In some countries, cars are taxed by engine displacement. In those cases, having a dense HP/L is critical to the success of a car. Selling one engine to North America, and a different engine to Europe might not be the most cost effective idea.
I like the GM 3800 engine, but I can see why it may have been eliminated.
Also, some of GM's DOHC engines used during the production of the 3800 weren't all that great. People tell me they don't miss the 3.4 DOHC that GM used in the 1990s Chevy Lumina which wasn't much more powerful than a later generation 3800. Making a DOHC engine may have been considered too much of a risk.
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I think the #1 reason engine architectures get cancelled is smog. Sometimes to pass smog, an engine's entire architecture might have to be changed. Ever read the documentary about how Chrysler made the AMC 258 into the Jeep 4.0? The engine had to be redesigned for a wider bore to help compensate for a shorter stroke. The cylinder heads also had to be completely different. That might not be economical in all situations. Other times, an old engine design can pass smog, but only by adding an air pump, precats, EGR, a compromised cam profile, and more stuff. Having all that extra stuff might be more expensive than an engine that creates low smog right from the combustion chamber. Next, there would be the concern that the way the engine handles heat would be a problem, as uniform temperatures are important to prevent HC from the cold places and NOx from the high places. Some engines now have multiple coolant pats in the cylinder head and block to improve this.
The Series III 3800 was the first gasoline engine certified as SULEV. Your other points, I cannot speak to, but smog does not appear to have been a real issue.
I think the #1 reason engine architectures get cancelled is smog. Sometimes to pass smog, an engine's entire architecture might have to be changed. Ever read the documentary about how Chrysler made the AMC 258 into the Jeep 4.0? The engine had to be redesigned for a wider bore to help compensate for a shorter stroke. The cylinder heads also had to be completely different. That might not be economical in all situations. Other times, an old engine design can pass smog, but only by adding an air pump, precats, EGR, a compromised cam profile, and more stuff. Having all that extra stuff might be more expensive than an engine that creates low smog right from the combustion chamber. Next, there would be the concern that the way the engine handles heat would be a problem, as uniform temperatures are important to prevent HC from the cold places and NOx from the high places. Some engines now have multiple coolant pats in the cylinder head and block to improve this.
The Series III 3800 was the first gasoline engine certified as SULEV. Your other points, I cannot speak to, but smog does not appear to have been a real issue.
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing.. Also won't look at anything that has rear drum brakes. GM's problem has always been the bean counters being in charge. Like a GM CEO once said, we aren't in business to make cars, we are in business to make money.
I've got 4-wheel disc brakes on my pushrod Buick V6.
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing.. Also won't look at anything that has rear drum brakes. GM's problem has always been the bean counters being in charge. Like a GM CEO once said, we aren't in business to make cars, we are in business to make money.
I've got 4-wheel disc brakes on my pushrod Buick V6.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing..
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I will remember that next time I pass you in my LS1 Trans Am or Supercharged Grand Prix.
This has to take the cake for stupidest things uttered on Bob is the Oil Guy. Thanks for my Friday Laugh... Enjoy your weekend.
Both fantastic engines! Quick too.
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing..
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I will remember that next time I pass you in my LS1 Trans Am or Supercharged Grand Prix.
This has to take the cake for stupidest things uttered on Bob is the Oil Guy. Thanks for my Friday Laugh... Enjoy your weekend.
Both fantastic engines! Quick too.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing..
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I will remember that next time I pass you in my LS1 Trans Am or Supercharged Grand Prix.
This has to take the cake for stupidest things uttered on Bob is the Oil Guy. Thanks for my Friday Laugh... Enjoy your weekend.
Both fantastic engines! Quick too.
Agreed, a hilarious comment. So many wonderful designs, some of the "old" style pushrod motors are quite sophisticated these days.
Around here we go by performance. Depending on how you quantify that term there are old school solutions for your needs.
There's a reason the new Vette has the lowest center of gravity ever measured, it's PUSHRODS!
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I won't purchase any vehicle that doesn't have a dual overhead cam,four valve per cylinder engine with variable valve timing..
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I will remember that next time I pass you in my LS1 Trans Am or Supercharged Grand Prix.
This has to take the cake for stupidest things uttered on Bob is the Oil Guy. Thanks for my Friday Laugh... Enjoy your weekend.
Both fantastic engines! Quick too.
Agreed, a hilarious comment. So many wonderful designs, some of the "old" style pushrod motors are quite sophisticated these days.
Around here we go by performance. Depending on how you quantify that term there are old school solutions for your needs.
There's a reason the new Vette has the lowest center of gravity ever measured, it's PUSHRODS!
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Agreed, a hilarious comment. So many wonderful designs, some of the "old" style pushrod motors are quite sophisticated these days.
And there's one thing overhead cam engines don't have: roller lifters.
My Buick 3800 has roller lifters and roller fulcrum rocker arms.
Agreed, a hilarious comment. So many wonderful designs, some of the "old" style pushrod motors are quite sophisticated these days.
And there's one thing overhead cam engines don't have: roller lifters.
My Buick 3800 has roller lifters and roller fulcrum rocker arms.
Originally Posted By: clinebarger
Originally Posted By: route66mike
^^^^ 3.8L had strangely awesome MPG the 4.3 couldn't match. Some kind of internal engine friction advantage. MIT did a low-friction ring research project years ago on that engine to help evolve it.
Low tension rings have been on 4.3L's for at least 15 years. The mileage difference isn't a fair comparison, Put a 3.8L in a full size truck....Then compare away.
A 3800 in a 3900lb car used less gas than a 4.3 in a 3900lb car!
Originally Posted By: route66mike
^^^^ 3.8L had strangely awesome MPG the 4.3 couldn't match. Some kind of internal engine friction advantage. MIT did a low-friction ring research project years ago on that engine to help evolve it.
Low tension rings have been on 4.3L's for at least 15 years. The mileage difference isn't a fair comparison, Put a 3.8L in a full size truck....Then compare away.
A 3800 in a 3900lb car used less gas than a 4.3 in a 3900lb car!
Originally Posted By: Rhymingmechanic
Way back in 1987, the intercooled turbo 3.8 in the GNX made 276 horsepower and 360 foot-lbs of torque. (GN experts may correct me--I just found 2 articles with these numbers.) I wonder what they could do with today's turbo and engine management technology.
In comparison, the 5.3 V8 in my Chevy pickup makes 285 hp/325 ft-lbs.
Actually, it made more...the "official" numbers were faiurly bogus. (Though probably not as bogus as the "250HP" 1989 turbo Trans Am...)
Way back in 1987, the intercooled turbo 3.8 in the GNX made 276 horsepower and 360 foot-lbs of torque. (GN experts may correct me--I just found 2 articles with these numbers.) I wonder what they could do with today's turbo and engine management technology.
In comparison, the 5.3 V8 in my Chevy pickup makes 285 hp/325 ft-lbs.
Actually, it made more...the "official" numbers were faiurly bogus. (Though probably not as bogus as the "250HP" 1989 turbo Trans Am...)
- Status
