Seeing that the tired and old rivalry between FOMOCO/Chevrolet/Chrysler is beaten to heck & beyond. What about the other half of GM??

 

The Buick big V8...both the nailhead (322- 425) and the later Buick V8 (400-455) were renowned for their torque production, which makes sense when you think how much those big Buicks weighed. When those V8s were put into the mid size Buick Skylarks (Gran Sport) especially in Stage 1 , 2 or 3 form back in the '60's, early '70's, they are highly regarded drag cars, among the best. Some say, they maybe the quickest , quicker in the higher Stage forms, than a Hemi .

Not too many people bought them up here, pricey and the Buick image as a luxo boat for your Dad.

Then there are the fearsome Buick Gran Sports of the '80's with the turbocharged 3.8 liter Buick 90 degree V6. Regarded by many as the fastest accelerating domestic of that time period. The Buick 3800 engine is rugged, reliable, capable of making lots of power and has been used in everything from Buicks, Indy cars, jeeps and Gran Sports. Don't confuse this magnificent engine with the GM high value 60 degree V6 which IMO (had 3) is not very good.

The Buick 90 degree V6 was judged as one of the 10 best engines of the past century by JD Power...that includes engines all over the world. They were made from '61 to and I'm not sure, but they still maybe made, as they are advertised as the std. engine for the '09 Buick LaCrosse sedan. I have one and it's a great engine in non aspirated from, lots of torque, creamy power and good gas milaege.

I gotta go. I'll talk about the Olds and the Pontiac later.
One of my favourites, an engine that is way undervalued, but a tremendous engine, IMO...the Ford 428FE V8, especially in it's Cobra Jet variety.

 

I had a buddy in H.S,had a 70 olds cutlass w/ "rocket" 350 4v. this motor seemed to put out way more power than chev/ pontiac 350. this was no 442 it was just a regular cutlass. It seemed more comparable to pontiac 400, or 351 cleveland.

 

Yeah, The 455 Pontiacs have 3.25" mains compared to the 3" 460s/429s. I have heard people say you can get HUGE cubes from the 455 crank in a 400 (you have to mill the .250 down to 3" for it to fit) BUT all you get is a 455 again unless your over bore the 400 which isn't that much anyways. The only bad thing I think with the 455s is the thinner wall compared to the 400 Ponti-wrecks. As for Buicks and Olds I couldnt tell ya. Each maker had their own measurements for parts like the FT & the FE Fords did for internal parts. I know the bores are all different between Olds-pon-Buick 455s as I am sure other CIDs.

I have to read up on the 428FE sometime. Don't know much about it. I think even though the 2bbl 351C engine is of the less popular engines simply because of just 2-barrels. I think its still a contender for the smallblocks that GM put out. 4bbl or 2bbl, I think GM has a fun time competing against the 351 Cleveland with either carb.

 

The 1949 Olds Rocket V8 was the first mass-produced OHV V-8. The design was shared with Cadillac. Coupled with the Hydramatic, also an Olds invention, it was the future of the American car as we knew it in the decades that followed. Ford/Mercury/Lincoln kept the antiquated flat head design for a few more years.

Jim

 

In the '50's Lincoln even used the GM Hydra matic transmission as did Rolls-Royce. Rolls used GM hydra matics culminating with the THM 400 in '60's Rollers.

The Olds was an early Nascar winner with it's Rocket V8, in the smaller 88 body. A good engine that lasted a long time in production. One of the first 3 X 2 bbl. engines in the '50's...the J-2 option. Olds 442's were forces to be reckoned with on the street and the strip.

A buddy had a Ford Torino with the Cobra Jet 428FE and 4 speed trannie. I would say it was one of the fastest cars I've ever been in, right up there with a '69 Chevy Nova 396-375 hp , 4 speed. I think they were significantly under-rated quite a bit, at 335 hp...favourable drag class and hopefully lower insurance rates.

My fil had a '66 Meteor 2 dr. HT(Canadian Mercury) with the 428FE-345 hp and C6 automatic. It was big and heavy and not particularly quick off the line, but after 30 mph up to and over 100 mph, hold on, belt up and look out.

 

What I can say is that when I hear talk of GM engines all that most people really see are Chevrolet, while the other makes represented better engine IMO. I had a Pontiac 350 in my 76 Grand Prix and I loved the thing. It was not fast, but what 76 V8 was? I ahve a soft spot for 70's Pontiacs when they were still Pontiacs. I also like the Old AMc V8s too.

 

When GM had essentially half the market share it may have made sense for each division to design its own engines. Starting in the 1970's they simply had to slim down. That unfortunately led to the "Chevy engine in my Oldsmobile" fiasco. There was no real justification for Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Pontiac each to have a 350 cubic inch cast iron 90 degree OHV V-8 that shared no castings or internal parts, but used identical accessories (fuel, electrical, etc).

Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth and Imperial all had identical 440's available. Ford was a mixed bag over the decades, with MEL (Mercury, Edsel, Lincoln) engines in the late 1950's, and a confusing array of FE, Cleveland, Windsor, "M" and probably others. Two 351's, a 427, 428 and 429?

Jim

 

I think would be just crazy HD as if Ford would have cast block skirts for the 385 series and make them 4 bolt standard engines . And when people say GM people just think of the Chevy engine-which is rediculous i think, I corrected one kid while I was in the automotive courses a couple years ago.

 

FOUR 351s, actually. 351M, 351C, 351W, and 352 (it counts since the BxS are the same 4"x 3.5") that had VERY limited or no interchangeability between them all.

 

I had all of them but never considered the 352 to be related to the 351 at all. The 351 Windsor I had in a 70 Ford was not nearly as good as the 351 Cleveland I had in a 72. The 351 Modified Cleveland I had in a 76 LTD was the best of the lot and was economical for the time (18 MPH in a 4,000+ lb. car). I thought the 351C and 351 M were the same except for the heads.

 

There is another almost forgotten Buick/Olds engine that is still in production in England, installed in Land Rovers. Its the all aluminum V-8 introduced in 1961. The Olds version was even available turbocharged.

When the Skylark grew from a compact to intermediate car for 1964, cost cutting axed the V-8 and led to the first modern V-6, which in current form is called the 3800.

Jim

 

Not related, but since Ford, in their infinite wisdom, decided that they needed to build 4 completely different 351.8952 CI v-8s, the 352 would count.

As far as 351c/m differences go, the deck height was different as was the bellhousing bolt pattern. Heads, similar enough. Cams interchange too. Also, the main/rod bearing journal diameters are larger on the "m".

 

I'm as diehard of a Ford man as they come, but there will always be a place in my heart for the GM 3.8 V6. Hence the reason why I walked past a line Tauruses to buy my 93 Buick LeSabre when I was looking for a cheap car a couple years ago.

Its a fine example of a swiss army knife engine. It lasted in production in one way or another for about 40 years. It seemed to fit everyone, grandpas had them in there Oldmobiles, family mans and soccer moms had them in the Buicks, and the punk kid down the street had a SuperCharged one in his GTP. Marketing guinus in a way, using one engine to reach out to wide audiance.

As far as comparing car six cylinder engines there's no competition for the 3800 in my book. They get fairly good mileage, mines worn out and still pulls a combined 23 mpg. They make decent power. Last but not least they simply last forever. I use to detail and do oil changes at a small local dealership, it wasn't to uncommon to see a 3800 equipped Buick, Pontiac, or Olds roll through with over 200,000-250,000 miles on the odometer. Our dealer demo car for a while was a 94 Olds 88 royal with 320,000 miles on it. It was beat on daily, left sitting outside idling for hours on cold days, but it just kept on going.

For a fair comparison among six cylinders, in the durability department, I think you'd have to compare the GM 3.8 to Fords trusty old mule, the 300 inline 6. The 300 out of my 82 F100 stuck a rod through the oil pan at 237,000 miles. I beat the ever living hell outta that engine for years and it just wouldnt die. Although I dont use my Buick to haul thousands of pounds of scrap metal it gets beat just as bad in other ways, and at 253,000 miles she still fires up and is willing as ever to work for another day.

 

I agree completely. The last 3.8 engine was produced (plant closed) on August 22, 2008. It was last used in the 2009 Buick Lacrosse. The cars with the 3.8 were not junked because of the engine. The cars were junked when the transmission died or the rest of the car just fell apart. I gave my daughter my old 93 Park Avenue and it still uses no oil at 200,000 miles. I just gave her my 98 Town Car with 125,000 miles on it as a replacement (much nicer car) but I think they will keep the old Buick because it has been so good to them. The only real problem with the 3.8 was a problem with cracked intake manifolds for several years that allowed antifreeze into the intake.

Tje replacement engine is the LZ4 3.5 engine. I have one in my 2008 Impala and it runs as well (211HP) and gets better fuel economy (33-34 vs 30-32 in the highway). I hope it is half as good as the 3.8.