GM 3.5L V6...decent engine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
2,163
Location
New Hampsha
I'm looking at a 2006 Malibu with the 3.5L V6 in it.....decent engine? Does it suffer any of the issues that the 3.4's do with the manifold leaks etc?

This engine would see about 35K a year of mostly highway driving.

For the money even though it is not the best looking car on the road it sure does offer a lot. Seems like the Ecotec 2.2 is pretty much bulletproof, just wondering how the 3.5L would fair and how many miles I could expect to get out of it before it goes kablooey



Goose
patriot.gif
 
My understanding is that the 3.5 does not have the coolant issues that the 3.1/3.4 had. There was a thread on here at least a year ago on the issue.
 
The 3.5 is a VVT engine, which is newer technology. Should be safe.

I had two 3.1 V6s that turned me off of GMs small V6s for good.
 
Steel crank, and other tough goodies should make it a keeper. I've got one in an Impala. I'm a believer in it's longevity. Pretty good performance too.
Rickey.
 
I'm weary of new GM designed engines especially v6 engines. especially one a few years ago. I pondered the same thing when I was looking to use up my GM card earnings. I go by UOAs, if I had to get a malibu, I would get the 2.2L ecotec
 
Goose, my BIL has had a 2005 malibu maxx with a 3.5L since mid 2004. They love it. Not a single problem. We've had about 5 3.xL, 4T45/4T65 equipped GM's in the family over the years. I've always been a fan of this drivetrain. The only major issue was one IMG replacement needed on the 1997 buick century. They are a simple, economical and snappy little V6.
07%203.5L%20V6%20LZ4%20MMX%20LoR.jpg
 
The 3.5 is a good engine. I would definitely purchase it over the buzzy Ecotec. The fuel economy difference is 1-2 mpg at most. Try Carmax as they have a ton of GM program cars on the lot, often with < 10k miles.

What happened to the Matrix?
 
Goose, NOOOOO DON'T BUY A MALIBU!!!!!

My wife and I are in the middle of a lawsuit with GM over our '04 Maxx. The engine continues to have a hard start issue that the TSB (which has been applied five times) won't cure. The brakes need replacing again (4th time in 30K miles), the rack & pinion was replaced, drivers half-shaft seal on the transaxle replaced, ABS computer, and a few other issues in my paperwork file. I met a guy at the grocery store with a new V6 Impala and we started talking about the hard start issue. When he went to leave, sure enough, the thing wouldn't start and just kept cranking and started on the 2nd attempt. This was a new '06 Imp.

I just caught another occurance of the hard start on my digi cam and will have to send it in for our case as the dealer denies there is a problem (more or less they called my wife a liar) and the GM folks said that there was nothing they could do and that I'd have to live with it (that response p'eed me off, to say the least).

Your Matrix runs well and you have awesome UOA's.
Do yourself a favor and stick with Toyota.
 
Quote:


I'm weary of new GM designed engines especially v6 engines. especially one a few years ago.



The ones from a few years ago are all based off of the old 3.1 from the late 80's/early 90s.

I had an 89 Cavaliler with a 2.8L V6 that was bulletproof. Drove it for almost 9 years before the car fell apart (engine was still good).

I had a 2001 Malibu with a 3.1L V6. Had to have the motor replaced at 42,000 kms due to piston slap damage. That car was one major lemon. For reasons still unknown to me, I leased a 2003 Malibu. Again with 3.1L V6, lower intake leaked as expected (within warranty period).

Got rid of it in October. Now have an HHR with a 2.4 VVT Ecotec. Nice motor, easier on gas than the V6 was.
 
Heh, my Saab 93 (which has an Ecotec that isn't buzzy, even at 135MPH, and oh by the way it didn't take long to get there AND it was perfectly legal) has a serpentine belt which drives exactly two components: The alternator and the AC compressor. It's the shortest serpentine belt I've ever seen.
 
There are several distinctions between the GM/Chevy 3.5L V-6s, plus between earlier versions of that engine family.

First, the 3.5L V-6 debuted in the then-new Malibu a few years ago. "Vortec" technology applied to the cylinder heads aided both power and fuel economy. V-6 power with the same or better EPA ratings as some highly-regarded import 4 cylinders. I did a short 50 mile run in a rented Malibu, using the cruise on freeway travel, plus to vary the speed up and down with the cruise. At the end, the "Average Fuel Economy" readout on the trip computer was going between 36 and 38mpg. That was basically at a 60 mph cruise.

The first Chevy 3.5L V-6 was rated at about 200 horsepower in the Malibu. It was not until 2006 that it went into the Impala (replacing the Buick 3800 and prior Chevy 3.4L V-6 engines). The 2006 Impala version was rated at 211 horsepower and has "cam-in-block" VVT. It also has an EPA Highway mileage rating of 31mpg. I rented one with a few hundred miles on it and at the end of a 200 mile trip, it was reading a solid 30mpg on the trip computer (running with traffic on I-45 south of Dallas, which does not always run at posted speeds!) and taking no great pains to drive it for max economy. When I dropped it off at DFW, it was on a solid 31mpg. Many "Instant Fuel Economy" readings (on flat roads) were in the middle 30s mpg range. I was impressed! The VVT has expanded the middle and upper rpm range power, plus pumped-up the low and mid-range torque. Not a bad deal at all! Many potential buyers of Malibus have stepped up to Impalas when they see the fuel economy ratings and then drive the cars.

Not sure about the stated "hard start" issues. With the starter now controlled by the ECM rather than just the ignition key, some seem to have a little too much delay in them for what I'm used to. It's all computer-run now. A member of one of the car clubs I'm in bought a new Maxx a few months ago. He loves it. Fairfax Assembly even called to see how it was doing for him, which impressed him.

The other new version of the Chevy 60 degree V-6 family is the 3.9L V-6. Introduced in 2006 on the 3LT and LTZ Impala models. Initially rated at 240 horsepower (the same power as the prior Buick supercharged 3800 V-6, but without the greater torque of that supercharged Buick V-6), it was also VVT. For 2007, it also gained "Active Fuel Management"--which can be monitored from the Driver Information Center's display. A good running engine!

With the Active Fuel Management, the stated benefit is an additional 8% fuel economy gain. Only issue is that it's going to be variable for the terrain you drive in and whether or not you generally use the cruise control on the highway. You'll never know when it's in 3 cyl or 6 cyl mode, from the way it feels, but you can see it on the Instant Fuel Economy display (which includes the number of cylinders in use at that particular time).

From my experience with reasonably new rental Impalas and Malibus with the 3.5L V-6, I think it's an improvement over what they used to have. I also think that unless I needed something in the Malibu's size, I'd go ahead and get an Impala instead.

I should also mention that the Chevy 3.5L is NOT the same motor as the DOHC 3.5L that was in previor Oldsmobile Intrigues and Auroras. THAT engine was a Northstar derivative and is now out of production. As it progressed, it became more responsive and fuel efficient from the first ones, but it went away when Oldsmobile did (which was it's only use).

Just some thoughts and observations,
CBODY67
 
Quote:


Quote:


Wow, serpentine shelby, serpentine......




serious, what a convoluted setup




GM puts the 3500 in cars where competitors only offer I4s, and to keep things servicable the belt must wrap around a bit more. I'd rather have a couple extra idlers in the serpentine belt then have the alternator underneath the car.
 
v6 in a FWD vehicle... any v6?!? mwahahahahahahaha... mwwaahahahahaha.

have fun with all that space you have in the engine compartment... I guess its worth it, as youre that much closer to being a 'sports car', right???

My advice - 4cyl engines have gotten to be really good, and more than enough power for the typical use of a midsize car.. plus theyre less shoehorned in, have two fewer spark plugs to change (and all 4 are easily accessible), etc.

were talking a malibu... not a buick or an impala, so there is less space... and its not a high performance euro engine or anything, so I dont see the real benefit, personally...

JMH
 
Last edited:
My brother has a 2005 Malibu Max as his business car. So far, he's got slightly over 50K miles on it, and no problems other than the battery died in the keyless remote.

- I just drove the car about 3 weeks ago, no problems or issues, gets excellent gas mileage.
 
Quote:


v6 in a FWD vehicle... any v6?!? have fun with all that space you have in the engine compartment




Actually not that bad. I had a couple of Corsicas and the only issue was the 3 rear plugs. But I had already had a V-6 Pontiac. After 2 plug changes its a piece of cake.
 
Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Wow, serpentine shelby, serpentine......




serious, what a convoluted setup




GM puts the 3500 in cars where competitors only offer I4s, and to keep things servicable the belt must wrap around a bit more. I'd rather have a couple extra idlers in the serpentine belt then have the alternator underneath the car.




i don't think it's smart engineering, each extra idler pulley is more parasitic loss.

the v6 malibu is also 100-200 lbs heavier than it's i4 competitors. This hurts you twice, in fuel economy and handling balance, since then the extra weight sits all in the front and causes more plow/understeer.

And for a low output v6, the power benefit over i4 is partially erased by the 4 speed auto and the previously mentioned additional weight.

I don't really see any benefit at all, it's not really any faster, doesn't get better gas mileage, not easier to work on, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top