If you look at the 3.5 and the 3.9, they look just like the old 3100 and 3400 V6's.

 

They ARE the 2.8/3.1/3.4!!!

We all know how exceptionally well-built THOSE engines are! Get rid of a GREAT 2-valve (albeit 90 degree) in favor of the engine that has given GM nothing but trouble over the last 20+ years. Makes one wonder why GM is in the toilet.

 

I bought a new Buick Allure (LaCrosse in the States) sedan with the Buick 90 degree 3800 V6. The primary reasons I bought it were #1 because I wanted the BUICK 3800 engine and the Buick was comfortable. It has been a tremendous engine, much, much better than the terrible GM 60 degree V6, which I had three and was not happy with that engine.

I've really enjoyed driving the car with the 3800 V6. Very torquey, rarely do I have to take it past 2500 rpm, very rarely full throttle, due to the rich low and mid range torque band. It's effortless power and the mileage ain't bad.

I rented a 2009 Impala with the GM 60 degree V6 and although it's rated at 11 more hp, in driving the two cars the 3800 cc seems to have scads more power, probably I'm thinking due to the power characteristics and emphasis on lots of torque in the design of this engine.

If my Buick was written off, I would not replace it with a new Buick sedan as the standard engine, now is the GM 60 degree V6. GM has the 60 degree V6 throughout the line of cars that I would consider and I would not own another GM 60 degree, so that means no more GM cars for me.

 

Exactly. As mentioned in my previous post if I had to replace my Buick for any reason, I would not buy another GM car with the 60 degree GM. Worst engine (I had 3 of them-didn't learn I guess) I have ever had in 43 years of driving. As said, I'm also astounded that GM dropped the Buick 3800 90 degree V6 that was rated as one of the top engines of the 20th century by JD Power. They drop the best engine in their line and keep on turning out the awful 60 degree. As a GM owner I'm not impressed.

 

You guys dont give the 3.8 litre ford v6 enough credit, after ford got the head gasket fiasco done this is a VERY dependable motor. Maybe it doesnt make the HP claims GM does with their 3800 but millions of T birds/ tauruses cant be wrong!

 

The 3.5 and 3.9 are other versions of the 60 degree V6....all from the same family as the 2.9, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.9.

I had two 2.8's, one 3.1. They all had multiple and expensive head gasket repairs- most out of my pocket, they all had engine knocks or piston slap.

That's my sorry experience.

 

Had a buddy who bought a 88 Grand Prix a few years back, talk about a absolute pile, every possible thing that could go wrong with that car went wrong with it. Sure the car was 7 or 8 years when he bought it, but the body/paint was flawless, and it was relgiously maintained with the records to prove it, only had 80,000 miles on it if I remember right.

It had a 2.8, you could floor it from a dead stop and you wouldnt see 60mph until 20 or 25 seconds later. This in a little tiny 2 door "sporty car", it was a guttless turd. The head gasket went at around 110,000 miles, he got it fixed, then at around 130,000 miles the tranny started slipping pretty good. Got the tranny repaired, then at 137,000 miles the head gasket went again.

Kinda sad, the car still looks brand new, interior is in nice shape, but the stupid thing just keeps dying.

 

Not being an a**, but the Ford 3.8 is a pile compared to the buick 3.8. It took Ford a long time to fix the 3.8 and it's gutless as well.


As to the Gm 60 deg V6, I used to have one in a 1990 Grand Prix. It ran great with 140K on it, never been apart. Thing would flat out fly also, could burn the tires of it. I really like that car, it even had the origional plug wires on it when I sold it last year. Current owner is getting almost 30 MPG out of it right now,, it looks like butt though as the pain peel from that oh so wonderful primer problem they had.

 

I've always liked the Small block Olds motors best of all.

They all lasted great (excluding diesel) and ran very well compared to their competitors even the much maligned smog models. I've always been of the opinion that the Olds v8 should have been the engine GM standardized in the early 80's

The 260 was slow but when properly tuned would get gas mileage that would make many 4cyl engines envious

the 307 just ran FOREVER and was much better than the 305chevy or smogged 302 ford

the 350 had lots of torque and pulled great as a replacement engines for 5.7diesel equipped trucks.

the 403 was a screamer with only a few mods in spite of the low CR ratio. And it fit right in place of a 260 in a 3200lb Cutlass

By a weird quirk of design all these engines used the same crankshaft and bigblock heads would fit with a ported intake

 

The main problems with the Olds V8's was that the rocker arms and fulcrums alwaus wore out early causing lifter ticking. They were also very wide.
But, usually very dependable and ran pretty good. Had an 76 Olds Omega (nova) with the 260V8 and it had well over 200K on it when we gave it to a needy nephew.
The 2.8L-3.4L GM engines are crap. Gutless anti-freeze eating waste of cast iron.
The 3300 Olds V6 was very dependable with good economy. It was a smaller version of the 3.8L.

Yes, the 70 GSX Buick stage 2 with over 500lb/ft of torque was quite fast!!

 

That Olds 5.7 diesel is a good engine for the racers that run alky from what I have been told. Change the heads etc and drop a distributor in if I remember right(may be more changes but I am not sure). Just a weak design diesel wise.

 

The "1949" Cadillac 331 cid OHV was running on engine stands in 1936. It as supposed to be installed in the 1942 Cadillac's but with the US entry into WWII, the project was postponed till the 1949 models.

The Cadillac engine beat the Olds engine (303 cid) to the market by one month, the two engines are not the same and were developed by different GM Divisions.

First Motor Trend Car of the Year: 1949 Cadillac.

The Studebaker V8 of 1951 (232 cid) was almost a direct copy of the Cadillac V8. The Cadillac's intake manifold will fit a Studie engine, but a Studebaker manifold won't fit the Cadillac.

The 1955 Packard V8 was a close copy of the Cadillac V8.

Olds was known within GM as their test division. Many of the innovations were first installed on Olds' before other GM cars used them.

Enamel paint in 1924, chrome plating in 1925 and Hydra-Matic in 1940 are three examples, as Olds was the first car to use them.

btw: Not all the innovations were installed on Oldsmobiles. The first car to have turn signals was the 1938 Buick.

 

In 1979 any mid/full size buick old or pontiac could have any V8 in them, olds, pontiac, chevy, buick. I had a '79 Olds 98 with an OLDS 350, a buddy had a '78 Delta 88 with a Ponitac 301 in it. That was a WIDE engine.....

 

GM lost a large lawsuit slipping Chevrolet 350 engines into Oldsmobiles with no disclosure. At the time, GM pushed their different brands as having different engines (and they were). Ford and MOPAR made no attempt to represent their different models as having different engines (and they weren't). Where GM got in truble was that the Chevolet 350 and the OLDS 350 had different fuel mileage ratings during a gas shortage and the Chevy had a lower rating. People would order a new OLDS thinking expecting one fuel mileage rating and got one with another. Since that time, every sticker on a GM vehicle proclaims that the engine may be from any division.

 

they were not the same block casting, but they did share the design (not only on this but also the northstar programme many decades later)