Compare GM's V6, e.g. 3.4, 3.5, 3,8

[CBDFrontier06]

That kinda makes me sad. I've never been a huge GM fan but I've always been a fan of the 3800. Of all the GM products I drove when I worked at a Pontiac / Buick shop, the 3800 equipped cars were my favorite. Quiet, quick and smooth as silk. It felt like a Rolls Royce engine when compared to a 2.8 or 3.1. One engine I never experienced was the 4-cam 3.4, so I don't know how it stacked up.

Are any of the new 3.x engines multi-valve? This seems to something GM just refuses to produce since the failure of the Quad 4 and 3.4 V6 of yore.

 

[dwendt44]

FYI: it's the Buick LaCrosse (Impala size) that will still use the 3800 engine(some models).

 

[06RANGER]

Quote:

---

Are any of the new 3.x engines multi-valve?

---

I don't believe the 3.5l is.

 

[InvalidUserID]

I've got nothing but good things to say about my 3800 II. Put over 100k on it, took me to and from college daily, and other than the intake issue, it has been problem free.

My LT1 buddies used to give me grief about the engine and I'd always just ask them how their optispark was.

 

[06RANGER]

and why does the 3.5l in the Saturn Aura get 13 more hp than the 3.5l Impala?

 

[Eddie]

Because it is a HONDA engine?

 

[MrCritical]

The 3.8 (3800) will eventually bite the dust, as will every
overhead valve engine in pass cars. Too hard to pass stiffer emissions every year.

It's a shame because besides the plastic intakes that were phased out it's a heck of an engine. Accepts superchargers and turbos easily.

You haven't lived until you drive the Turbo Regal GNX.

 

[06RANGER]

Don't think so.

 

[MrCritical]

Ranger, that word comes straight from GM. The multivalve engine is much easier to pass emissions. They haven't built a pass car 2 valve engine in years.

 

[Matt_S]

Quote:

---

Because it is a HONDA engine?

---

That's ONLY the Vue. Starting with the '08 models, the Honda 3.5L won't be used at all.

 

[Matt_S]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Are any of the new 3.x engines multi-valve?

---

I don't believe the 3.5l is.

---

The 3.6L is DOHC, 4 valve/cyl. It gets anywhere from 252 hp in the Aura to 275 in the Outlook/Acadia/Enclave. There's also a direct injected version in the '08 CTS that gets 300 hp.

GM's Media Site has an overview of all their engines.

 

[88Dakota]

I love how a company like GM can take ancient technology (the 3.8) and market it as "reliable."

 

[Matt_S]

Quote:

---

I love how a company like GM can take ancient technology (the 3.8) and market it as "reliable."

---

Ummm, they don't "market" it as reliable: it IS reliable. That engine is arguably one of the best ones they've ever produced and has had one of the longest durations (in terms of how long it's been around) in its various forms of nearly anything out there.

BTW, OHC engines have been around just as long as OHV designs. Neither one is "ancient". Each has it's own advantages. That's already been hashed out a million times, though.

 

[Steve S]

What makes the technology Ancient?

 

[Steve S]

Quote:

---

The 3.8 (3800) will eventually bite the dust, as will every
overhead valve engine in pass cars. Too hard to pass stiffer emissions every year.

It's a shame because besides the plastic intakes that were phased out it's a heck of an engine. Accepts superchargers and turbos easily.

You haven't lived until you drive the Turbo Regal GNX.

---

The multivalve engines are a newer more efficient design ,OHC engines are cheaper to build . The community college I went to to keep up on the latest technology had a Grand National donated by G.M with a off road only emission sticker, the car really had power. I prefer ohv engines as they are more compact.

 

[mstrjon32]

Quote:

---

I love how a company like GM can take ancient technology (the 3.8) and market it as "reliable."

---

The 3.8 is FAR more reliable and requires considerably less service and upkeep that many so-called modern engines which require scheduled timing belt checks and replacements, have poorly designed internal water pumps, and a host of other complexities which inherently reduce "reliability".

What I love is how companies like Toyota and Honda (and even GM) can produce overly complicated, gimmicky engines with all kinds of crazy DOHC and VTEC nonsense, claim they offer more power and economy because of said features, which is false, and stupid Americans eat it up.

GM figured out how to design engines 50 years ago: 8 cylinders, 16 valves, and 1 cam. Put it in 6th and get 30 mpg, drop it into 2 and blow the doors off of any clicking, noisy "high-tech" engine on the road. 'nuff said.

 

[The Critic]

Quote:

---

The 3.8 is FAR more reliable and requires considerably less service and upkeep that many so-called modern engines which require scheduled timing belt checks and replacements, have poorly designed internal water pumps, and a host of other complexities which inherently reduce "reliability".

---

And even though the import offerings may have very complex designs, I've yet to see them have any of the reliability issues that have been directly linked to the complex systems such as VVT-i. The water pump troubles that you've mentioned were exclusive to some VWs, AFAIK. And timing belts? Many timing belts run less than $500 to replace every 100k (or so). And what about the intake gasket problems with the 3.8? Sure, there were less common with the 3.8 than with the 3.1/3.4, but they did exist.

Quote:

---

What I love is how companies like Toyota and Honda (and even GM) can produce overly complicated, gimmicky engines with all kinds of crazy DOHC and VTEC nonsense, claim they offer more power and economy because of said features, which is false, and stupid Americans eat it up.

---

Toyota's chain-driven 3.5L V6 delivers 268HP, a mid 6 second 0-60 time, and 31 mpg on the highway on regular fuel in the Camry. Can and did the GM 3800 do the same, and if so, where?

 

[mstrjon32]

Quote:

---

Ranger, that word comes straight from GM. The multivalve engine is much easier to pass emissions. They haven't built a pass car 2 valve engine in years.

---

I should spare you the embarrassment of pointing out the fact that the 2006 Pontiac Grand Prix is available in California and the Northeastern states with an emissions package which gives it an EPA air pollution score of 9.5; considerably less polluting than the Accord and Camry V6 of the same year which both receive a score of 7. As a matter of FACT, the Prius also receives a score of 9.5, as does the Camry 4 cylinder. Interesting how GM's "low-tech" 3800 can deliver emissions on par with some of the worlds most so-called modern powertrains. So much for your completely unfounded, misguided, incorrect, and presumably biased theory about OHV engines not being able to keep up with so-called "modern" engines in terms of emissions and pollution. I'd provide you with data for the 2008 MY, but the EPA doesn't seem to have this data on 2008 MY cars yet.

Furthermore, it receives better fuel economy ratings as well: 18/28 compared to the 18/27 and 18/26, of the Camry and Accord, respectively.

If you don't believe me, look it up on fueleconomy.gov for yourself. I'd link you but the pages from the site are dynamically generated. If you're going to try and bash GM, at least get your facts straight.

 

[mstrjon32]

Quote:

---

Toyota's chain-driven 3.5L V6 delivers 268HP, a mid 6 second 0-60 time, and 31 mpg on the highway on regular fuel in the Camry. Can and did the GM 3800 do the same, and if so, where?

---

Actually it gets 28 mpg on the highway, as per new EPA testing. Can the naturally aspirated GM 3800 do the same, no...but the supercharged version will be happy to blow the doors off of the Toyota, and get similar or better economy to boot. The Toyota engine is at a clear advantage because it offers direct injection. GM has many direct injection engines available and in the pipeline as well, which produce more power than the Toyota engine while delivering similar economy; that is, if you're into fuel dilution and even more complexity.

The timing belt might not need to be replaced "often" but it sure does need to be replaced. Compare that with a GM 3800 which never needs timing chain replacement. Even my comparably unreliable old GM 3100 was on it's original timing chain when I sold it with 195K miles.

 

[The Critic]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Toyota's chain-driven 3.5L V6 delivers 268HP, a mid 6 second 0-60 time, and 31 mpg on the highway on regular fuel in the Camry. Can and did the GM 3800 do the same, and if so, where?

---

Actually it gets 28 mpg on the highway, as per new EPA testing. Can the naturally aspirated GM 3800 do the same, no...but the supercharged version will be happy to blow the doors off of the Toyota, and get similar or better economy to boot. The Toyota engine is at a clear advantage because it offers direct injection. GM has many direct injection engines available and in the pipeline as well, which produce more power than the Toyota engine while delivering similar economy; that is, if you're into fuel dilution and even more complexity.

---

True, I was referring to the 2007 ratings. Now, let's compare apples to apples here though. I don't think the 3800 is still available in a supercharged form in say, the Lucerne though.

Quote:

---

The timing belt might not need to be replaced "often" but it sure does need to be replaced. Compare that with a GM 3800 which never needs timing chain replacement. Even my comparably unreliable old GM 3100 was on it's original timing chain when I sold it with 195K miles.

---

Yes, but the timing belt replacement is a planned and expected maintenance item. An intake gasket is not.