GM 3400 engine

[brick]

OH!! Dang it anyway!!! I forget: Is there a way to find out if in FACT that motor (2005, 3.4 v/6) did NOT have intake problems?? I'm sure a dealer would not give me the real answer.
If it had to be replaced would a dealer put in better gaskets or something just as cheap so it fails later??

 

[eljefino]

I'd run out and get oil and coolant analysis done as proof in case you need warranty work.

They'll fix your car as cheaply as possible, but the gaskets have been updated. Hope the cheapest gaskets in their parts chain are the updated ones, as they probably are.

 

[Nick R]

Why OHV is outdated: Nearly every modern engine currently produced is a 4-valve per cylinder design. That is extremely difficult on OHV engines. It also means that any existing OHV engine is not multi-valve. With the exception of a few V8s, 2-valve per cylinder is pretty archaic.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: cchase
Originally Posted By: meangreen01
Outdated OHV technology(hat-tip to LS series that are an exception). Unless you're a GM guy looking for a commuter, or are getting a sweetheart deal on it I'd look elsewhere IMO.


I'm always very curious where people come up with this stuff. Marketing must really get into peoples heads if they think there's some overwhelming reason to go with an OHC engine over an OHV for 99% of drivers. I can't figure out whether it's the vastly simpler mechanics, lower weight, or higher long term reliability that turns people off. Unless you're trying to spin the engine to 7k rpm or something I fail to see the huge disadvantage to OHV design.


+1.
Some of the best and most reliable engines ever made were 2V,many are still made today.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Why OHV is outdated: Nearly every modern engine currently produced is a 4-valve per cylinder design. That is extremely difficult on OHV engines. It also means that any existing OHV engine is not multi-valve. With the exception of a few V8s, 2-valve per cylinder is pretty archaic.

Would you like a ride in my Trans Am?

 

[eljefino]

Where'd this OHV hate come in? Your Cavalier engine picture making Jalopnik's "lame engine" article? Let it go.

Lots of power from a small external space. Plenty of displacement and torque. Short timing chain.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Where'd this OHV hate come in? Your Cavalier engine picture making Jalopnik's "lame engine" article? Let it go.

Lots of power from a small external space. Plenty of displacement and torque. Short timing chain.



ahhhh I remember that... lol

Nah. But it does make 3+ valve per cylinder easier to accomplish. And while that might not necessarily equal higher performance it does tend to have higher efficiency.

 

[Hokiefyd]

With a few exceptions, OHC engines are often more refined than OHV engine, at least the few with which I've had experience. I thought the 60-degree OHV 3.8L V-6 put out by Chrysler was a smooth engine. But in comparison to the 60-degree OHC 3.5L V-6 in the Honda that replaced that vehicle, there's no comparison at all. At all. Maybe Chrysler's V-6 was particularly bad and Honda's V-6 is particularly good making the difference even more dramatic, I don't know.

There are a few exceptions. I don't think the OHC KA24E in my Nissan truck was all that smooth, and I don't think Ford's Modular engines sound very refined at all. Comparing the engines in our 2006 F-150 and 2008 Ram is like apples and oranges.

 

[morris]

"If I recall correctly, GM had the intake gasket issue under control before the 2005 model year." NO,NO,NO, and NO!! my mom has a 96 olds. she just got it back from the shop, today. please for give me. but. if i had been building cars as long as GM but could not make an intake seal. i would close up shop, dont worry i have thrown darts at the brand i drive as well.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: morris
"If I recall correctly, GM had the intake gasket issue under control before the 2005 model year." NO,NO,NO, and NO!! my mom has a 96 olds. she just got it back from the shop, today. please for give me. but. if i had been building cars as long as GM but could not make an intake seal. i would close up shop, dont worry i have thrown darts at the brand i drive as well.

Yes they did the new designed gasket started going in in 05, not to mention some minute changes were made to the intake.
1996 to 04 are the cars the have the problem.

 

[morris]

well they STILL dont know what they are doing.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: morris
well they STILL dont know what they are doing.

Guys like you kill me...

 

[morris]

yea i just love jabbing other brands. course i could tell you more not so good things about my brand than i can tell you about others. my bigest thing about my chryslers, is the more than not good, leaky a/c hoses. makes me very upset.

 

[CharBaby]

Larry,
GM made some of the most torquey/fuel efficent V6's on the market even with out the raw HP#'s. Driving them felt like there was power everywhere. The MPG rivaled 4cyl's. Nice and smooth w/good auto trannys. If the car is clean and the price is right, I'd jump on it.

When my daughter bought her '06 Mazda3 in '09, there was an '06 IMPALA, same miles and a nicer car overall for $1300.00 less money before negotiating. But, small, cute, easy to park, "just the right size" and fuel efficent were the criteria. The IMPALA was just too big for her liking.

 

[artificialist]

The GM 3.4 is one of only a few engines that I often replace head gaskets on. I would never buy one, new or used.

 

[guyonearth]

Old discussion, but for those of us who like to fix our own stuff, a conventional OHV engine is much preferable to some complex DOHC setup. Just eliminating the timing belts alone is worth it to me, and you might feel the same if you've ever had on break. When people sneer at my old cars, I just ask if they can actually fix theirs. It usually shuts them up.

 

[Trav]

I have done quite a few heads on these engine but all were prior to 2005.
Not what i would call a bad engine, the basic mechanicals of it are good. No worries.