GM's best engine: 3.4 or 3.8 ?

[Daniel]

I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?

Daniel

[Patrick Foley]

HI

If i was to guess it would be a 3300 or a 3800

pat...

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc)

I

Post by Daniel
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?
Daniel

[Vuarra]

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?
Daniel

Number one, be careful how many NG you cross-post to.

The GM 3800 would be the best choice from the three you have listed.
Other than making the Forbes list of top 10 engines, this small dynamo
was created by Buick back in the early '60's, and has been around for
40-odd years. While all engines have their drawbacks, this one has
the least amount of problems, and is darn powerful to boot.

As usual, YMMV


Vuarra

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound.)

[eightupman]

I have a neighbor with a 3.1 and there is 297,000 miles on the motor.
FACTORY MOTOR, NOT REBUILT. It runs like a champ. It leaks oil out of the
valve covers, but no noises or anything. And these are true hihway miles.
and hour and a half drive to and from work every day for 2 years.
Anything will last if you keep up with the oil changes and other routine
maintenance.

John

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc)

I

Post by Daniel
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?
Daniel

[Brad Clarke]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:49:10 GMT, "eightupman"

Post by eightupman
I have a neighbor with a 3.1 and there is 297,000 miles on the motor.
FACTORY MOTOR, NOT REBUILT. It runs like a champ. It leaks oil out of the
valve covers, but no noises or anything. And these are true hihway miles.
and hour and a half drive to and from work every day for 2 years.
Anything will last if you keep up with the oil changes and other routine
maintenance.

Must be a pre 1999 car.

The 3.1L engine from 1999 onward are prone to a problem known as piston
slap. Mine only lasted 46,000 kms before GM had to put a new engine in
my car.

Brad

[eightupman]

yeppers...1994 Pontiac Grand Am.

Post by Brad Clarke
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:49:10 GMT, "eightupman"

Post by eightupman
I have a neighbor with a 3.1 and there is 297,000 miles on the motor.
FACTORY MOTOR, NOT REBUILT. It runs like a champ. It leaks oil out of the
valve covers, but no noises or anything. And these are true hihway miles.
and hour and a half drive to and from work every day for 2 years.
Anything will last if you keep up with the oil changes and other routine
maintenance.

Must be a pre 1999 car.
The 3.1L engine from 1999 onward are prone to a problem known as piston
slap. Mine only lasted 46,000 kms before GM had to put a new engine in
my car.
Brad

[Brad Clarke]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:38:32 -0400, "Clem"

Piston slap means you must replace the engine?

Piston replacment as a minimum...new engine as a worst case.

Yikes!
I've heard it causes absolutely no problems...

Rough idle, increased oil consumption, less power, sounds really noisy
at start up.

In my case, the pistons were still "slapping" 5 minutes after the engine
was started.

Piston slap will eventually "oval" out the bottom of the cylinder bore.
Other than that, I've heard of nothing else that makes me think piston slap
is anything detrimental to longevity.

Dunno. With mine, the slapping gouged two of the cylinder walls.

[Steve]

My '87 Caravan's 2.2 also has massive piston slap.... 235k miles and she's
still going strong.

Are you sure its piston slap? Chrysler 2.2 and 2.5 engines are known for
a lot of wrist-pin noise (also harmless), but less so for piston slap.

[Clem]

Aha!

I think you're right. I mixed up the 2. Thanks.

My '90 Grand Prix has had piston slap (I assume) since I got it. I used to
think it was just the sound of the oil pump working. But I read about the
slap and assume that is what's happening in my grand prix.

Honestly, I can't believe piston slap doesn't harm anything. But I've read
about it being harmless in more than one instance. Granted, one instance was
in a small engine repair manual (Briggs and Stratton).

Post by Steve

My '87 Caravan's 2.2 also has massive piston slap.... 235k miles and she's
still going strong.

Are you sure its piston slap? Chrysler 2.2 and 2.5 engines are known for
a lot of wrist-pin noise (also harmless), but less so for piston slap.

[Steve]

Post by Clem
Aha!
I think you're right. I mixed up the 2. Thanks.
My '90 Grand Prix has had piston slap (I assume) since I got it. I used to
think it was just the sound of the oil pump working. But I read about the
slap and assume that is what's happening in my grand prix.
Honestly, I can't believe piston slap doesn't harm anything. But I've read
about it being harmless in more than one instance. Granted, one instance was
in a small engine repair manual (Briggs and Stratton).

I think its one of those things where there's sort of a cliff you can
fall off of. Just the right amount of piston clearance, and all is
quiet. A few thousandths looser, and its noisy as heck but not damaging
(happens to any piston with forged pistons when cold, for example, and
is why almost no maker uses forged pistons except in high-performance
applications). A few more thousandths, and the noise doesn't sound any
worse but the cylinders and pistons get chewed up much much faster.

[Larry Smith]

I had the same information, quoted on rec.autos.tech some time ago,
which said the 3.4 was the best ever.

All the V6's, from 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.4DOHC, and 3.8 have some drawbacks.
I think that most of the problems can be solved or avoided if you are going
to rebuild.


The 3.8 or 3800 is pretty good however. I have no information higher CID
V6's.

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc)

I

Post by Daniel
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?
Daniel

[John]

Post by Larry Smith
I had the same information, quoted on rec.autos.tech some time ago,
which said the 3.4 was the best ever.
All the V6's, from 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.4DOHC, and 3.8 have some
drawbacks. I think that most of the problems can be solved or avoided
if you are going to rebuild.
The 3.8 or 3800 is pretty good however. I have no information higher
CID V6's.

I've run my own repair shop for some time, and I dread when I see the
3.4L engine come into the shop. It's a good running motor, for 100-150k
miles... but what a nightmare to work on. Have fun replacing a simple
alternator!!

-J

[Daniel J. Stern]

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most
reliable, best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas
mileage, etc) I can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or
maybe even the 3.1) ? Any toughts?

Of the three you mention, the 3.8 is the *only* one by a *VERY* large
margin that qualifies as one of GM's better efforts. The 3.1 and 3.4 are
garbage.

DS

[Canaan Apollyon]

Post by Daniel J. Stern

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most
reliable, best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas
mileage, etc) I can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or
maybe even the 3.1) ? Any toughts?

Of the three you mention, the 3.8 is the *only* one by a *VERY* large
margin that qualifies as one of GM's better efforts. The 3.1 and 3.4 are
garbage.

Do you mind giving us some reasons as to why?

[Clem]

Lol... no. He means why is the 3.1 and 3.4 junk?

My 13 year old 3.1 has over 200k miles and it still leaves black marks when
you want to.

Sure. The reason for my question: I plan to go out shopping for a used GM
sedan, between 2 and 4 years old, with average mileage for the age. Was
wondering what should I go for.
Daniel

[Clem]

HAH! Well.... there too.

But really, she's still as strong as the day I got 'er. A bit more loose in
the suspension and feel for the "Pontiac performance", but she'll go like
mad (trashed motor mounts and all)

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:40:15 -0400, "Clem"

Post by Clem
Lol... no. He means why is the 3.1 and 3.4 junk?
My 13 year old 3.1 has over 200k miles and it still leaves black

marks...

around the exhaust tips?...
- Mr.C.J. - S.T.P. - B.H.C. - S.O. - STALKER ORIGINAL -
"...that i could get sold, rolled, and cornholed for
a negotiable price!" - Pilot
-{ http://www.oldtimehardcore.com/biography/stp.asp }-

[unknown]

How long has the 3400 engine been around for.... Is it the same as the 2.8 and 3.1,
just larger or a different design ??

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?
Daniel

[Harry Face]

Dan

The 1991 3800 was a very good engine.

The newer ones are just as reliable but have intake manifold & intake
gaskets problems as you may be aware of. Scroll through this newsgroup &
alt.autos.pontiac and you'll hear all about the engines your inquiring
about.

Much of the late 90's 3800's problem was due to a plastic Intake
manifold ( also called a Plenum ) and bad gaskets. With 200 HP and 225
Torque there pretty good runners. The supercharged 3800 has 240 HP and
280 Torque but requires premium fuel. Having the supercharger eliminates
the plastic Intake on top of the engine.

Good Luck.

=========
Harryface
=========

1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE
~_~_~263,000 miles_~_~~_

[Steve]

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?
Daniel

Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472. :-)

Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.

[old dirtbeard]

Post by Steve

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?
Daniel

Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.

Well, actually the current engine that comes
closest to the old v8's is the 4.3L Vortec. It
basically is a Chevy 350 with two cylinders taken
out of the middle, except they now have roller
rockers, roller lifters, cast aluminum oil pans
that bolt into the transmission, balance shaft, a
lot more computing, etc.

I have one in my '03 GMC Savana with a 2,500 lb
payload that got 20.1 MPG on the highway with less
than 2,000 miles on the odometer. It is a very
smooth, very quiet and very torquey (260 lb ft at
a very low 2,800 rpm).

best,

doug

[Rob]

It gets my vote....


On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:35:52 GMT, old dirtbeard

Post by old dirtbeard

Post by Steve

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?
Daniel

Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.

Well, actually the current engine that comes
closest to the old v8's is the 4.3L Vortec. It
basically is a Chevy 350 with two cylinders taken
out of the middle, except they now have roller
rockers, roller lifters, cast aluminum oil pans
that bolt into the transmission, balance shaft, a
lot more computing, etc.
I have one in my '03 GMC Savana with a 2,500 lb
payload that got 20.1 MPG on the highway with less
than 2,000 miles on the odometer. It is a very
smooth, very quiet and very torquey (260 lb ft at
a very low 2,800 rpm).
best,
doug

[Steve]

Post by Steve
Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.

Well, actually the current engine that comes closest to the old v8's is
the 4.3L Vortec.

I disagree completely. The 4.3 is a sawed-off small-block Chevy. Note
that *no* Chevrolet-designed engine made my list, and the 4.3 isn't even
a whole Chevy engine.


Just my opinion, but GM completely blew it when they phased out the Olds
and Buick v8s and kept the smallblock shivvy. It was OK up to 327 cubic
inches, but bigger than that it has rods too short for its stroke. But
even as a 283, 302, or 327, the stud-mounted rockers aren't strong
enough, the bearings are too small, they never cast the blocks with
enough nickel in the alloy, the oil return holes in the heads are too
small.... the list is long.

[old dirtbeard]

I disagree completely. The 4.3 is a sawed-off small-block Chevy. Note that *no* Chevrolet-designed engine made my list, and the 4.3 isn't even a whole Chevy engine.

Well, by definition, if Chevy never made a good
engine, then clearly the 4.3L cannot be a good engine.

I agree that the old buick v8s were good engines
(I don't have enough experience with the others),
but to say Chevy never made a good engine, well,
you have your right to your own opinion.

The straight six and V8 Chevy's I have been around
were light, reliable, affordable, easy to work on,
and had good output. I have wrenched quite a few
engines, foreign and domestic, and I just don't
see the basis of your beliefs.

But I would be the last person to try to dissuade
you from your opinions.

best,

doug

[C. E. White]

Post by old dirtbeard
The straight six and V8 Chevy's I have been around
were light, reliable, affordable, easy to work on,
and had good output. I have wrenched quite a few
engines, foreign and domestic, and I just don't
see the basis of your beliefs.

Until recent years, Chevy V-8 were not at al light. The "small block"
Chevy was only light compared to other GM V-8s. It was about 75 lbs
lighter than the Ford FE Big Block and about 75 lbs heavier than a 302
(with similar components). The older Chevy Inline sixes actually weighed
more than a Ford FE Big Block. In later years they got the Inline 6
weight down to a little less than a Ford 302, but they were never
"light."

Ed

[old dirtbeard]

Post by C. E. White

Post by old dirtbeard
The straight six and V8 Chevy's I have been around
were light, reliable, affordable, easy to work on,
and had good output. I have wrenched quite a few
engines, foreign and domestic, and I just don't
see the basis of your beliefs.

Until recent years, Chevy V-8 were not at al light. The "small block"
Chevy was only light compared to other GM V-8s. It was about 75 lbs
lighter than the Ford FE Big Block and about 75 lbs heavier than a 302
(with similar components). The older Chevy Inline sixes actually weighed
more than a Ford FE Big Block. In later years they got the Inline 6
weight down to a little less than a Ford 302, but they were never
"light."
Ed

Point well taken, but I thought the thread was
regarding the best "GM V6 engine."

I probably should not have ventured into this
thread, but I thought it was about the best GM V6.
Now the scope is increasing, perhaps, to the best
engine ever, and I would not have proposed a
response to that question as far too many
variables are involved (costs, weights,
efficiency, longevity, maintenance, parts pricing,
etc.).

I thought somebody asked what was the best current
GM V6. My response was the Vortec 4.3. I stand by
that, but I am not ready to compare it to big
block Fords, Packards, or a V12 Ferrari.

Post by C. E. White
Well, actually the current engine that comes closest to the old v8's is the 4.3L Vortec. It basically is a Chevy 350 with two cylinders taken out of the middle, except they now have roller rockers, roller lifters, cast aluminum oil pans that bolt into the transmission, balance shaft, a lot more computing, etc.
I have one in my '03 GMC Savana with a 2,500 lb payload that got 20.1 MPG on the highway with less than 2,000 miles on the odometer. It is a very smooth, very quiet and very torquey (260 lb ft at a very low 2,800 rpm).

For 2003, I think this is the best V6 that GM
makes. Good power, smooth, good reliability, good
economy, etc. That is all I have stated from the
outset.

best,

doug

[Hardpan]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:20:51 GMT, "C. E. White"

Post by C. E. White

Post by old dirtbeard
The straight six and V8 Chevy's I have been around
were light, reliable, affordable, easy to work on,
and had good output. I have wrenched quite a few
engines, foreign and domestic, and I just don't
see the basis of your beliefs.

Until recent years, Chevy V-8 were not at al light. The "small block"
Chevy was only light compared to other GM V-8s. It was about 75 lbs
lighter than the Ford FE Big Block and about 75 lbs heavier than a 302
(with similar components). The older Chevy Inline sixes actually weighed
more than a Ford FE Big Block. In later years they got the Inline 6
weight down to a little less than a Ford 302, but they were never
"light."

Keeps the front end hugging the road doesnt it ? ;)

[Steve]

Post by C. E. White

Post by old dirtbeard
The straight six and V8 Chevy's I have been around
were light, reliable, affordable, easy to work on,
and had good output. I have wrenched quite a few
engines, foreign and domestic, and I just don't
see the basis of your beliefs.

Until recent years, Chevy V-8 were not at al light. The "small block"
Chevy was only light compared to other GM V-8s.

The Oldsmobiles were heavy, and STRONG. I've always argued that the big
Oldsmobile would have made the best heavy truck/bus gasoline engine of
anything in the GM family and should have gone into GMC dumptrucks and
flatbeds instead of the Chevy 454. But the Buick v8 was actually fairly
light. IIRC, a Buick 455 wasn't much heavier than a Chevy 350.


Chevy engines do have some good points, but IMO very little of their
good points actually have much to do with engineering design. They're
easy to find parts for. They're cheap to work on because they have HUGE
market penetration, so they're familiar and well-supported by multiple
parts vendors. The basic engineering is sound, but not outstanding
especially when it was pushed to larger displacements than the original
crank-centerline-to-deck dimensions were intended to support, resulting
in the 350 with a borderline rod ratio and the 400 with a HORRIBLE rod
ratio. Even still, they remained acceptably powerful and reliable, so I
can't argue that they're "junk", just that they don't count among "the
best" that detroit offered. By sheer volume of production, the Chevy v8
pushed aside technically superior engines from Buick and Oldsmobile, and
at least equivalent designs from Pontiac (although Pontiacs had enough
weaknesses to rule them out of 'the best' category also). That's really
my only gripe with them.

[Daniel J Stern]

Post by old dirtbeard
but to say Chevy never made a good engine, well,
you have your right to your own opinion.
The straight six and V8 Chevy's I have been around
were light, reliable, affordable, easy to work on,
and had good output.

...but if you go back to when Oldsmobile still made their own V8s, and
compare (for instance) the Chevrolet 350 to the Olds 350, the Olds is the
absolute hands-down winner in every category from durability to
engineering "rightness" (bearing dimensions, rod ratios, etc.) to
efficiency to ease of service to driveability (even with the strangulation
type emission controls of the day). Same with the Olds 455 vs. Chev 454.
GM would've done much, much better to have standardized on the Olds V8s
rather than the cheaper-to-build Chevrolet items. The current iterations
of the Chevrolet engines are quite advanced, and most of the inherent
engineering faults have been worked around ... but engineered products are
always better when the underlying, basic engineering is sound, and the
Olds V8s were vastly more soundly engineered than their Chevrolet
counterparts.

DS

[k***@hotmail.com]

The Olds V8 had those really substandard aluminum rocker arm pivot
things that are even worse than the substandard stud and half ball
pivots on the Chevy. None of the GM V8's are even close to the '51 to
'58 Chrysler hemis, except that most of the GM engines are lighter.

But back to the post that started this thread, he asked about 3.4 and
3.8 engines, probably indicating an interest in late model GM front
drive cars, not trucks or old cars. That being the case, the 3.8/3800
is probably the answer he was looking for. The 4.3 is a truck engine.

Post by Daniel J Stern
...but if you go back to when Oldsmobile still made their own V8s, and
compare (for instance) the Chevrolet 350 to the Olds 350, the Olds is the
absolute hands-down winner in every category from durability to
engineering "rightness" (bearing dimensions, rod ratios, etc.) to
efficiency to ease of service to driveability (even with the strangulation
type emission controls of the day). Same with the Olds 455 vs. Chev 454.
GM would've done much, much better to have standardized on the Olds V8s
rather than the cheaper-to-build Chevrolet items. The current iterations
of the Chevrolet engines are quite advanced, and most of the inherent
engineering faults have been worked around ... but engineered products are
always better when the underlying, basic engineering is sound, and the
Olds V8s were vastly more soundly engineered than their Chevrolet
counterparts.
DS

[Steve]

No disagreements here, but the EPA did not prefer the Olds engine when
it came time for emissions checking, which is why the Chevrolet lives
on :(

You've got cause and effect backward there. GM poured far more resources
into improving the emissions of the Chevrolet engine than it did the
Olds, Pointiac, and Buick because the writing was on the wall that there
would be no need for 3 different identical-displacement v8s in the 80s
and 90s (heck, Ford and Chrysler moved to corporate engines back in the
50s, it amazes me that divisional in-fighting among the GM divisions
managed to keep multiple engine plants going as long as it did!) GM
still doesn't really have a corporate engine- the Gen III v8s are
basically Chevrolet as are the 3400 and 4.3 Vortec v6, the Northstar was
intended to become the 'corporate' engine (and someday actually might)
but basically developed from the Cadillac engine program, Buick still
makes the 3800, and IIRC Pontiac lingers on in charge of the 4-cylinder.

But back to the Olds v8... there's no reason whatsoever that the Olds
could not have been made just as clean as the Chevy if GM hadn't ramped
down on new engineering for it starting in the late 70s or early 80s
with the intent of economizing on engine overhead by standardizing on a
single v8. They had already picked the Chevrolet years before the Olds
was phased out completely in the early 90s. The Chevy lives on strictly
because GM had more production capacity for it than for the Olds engine
and it was cheaper per unit to build. The greater production capacity
for the Chevy was why some Chevy 350s started appearing in Buicks and
Oldsmobiles back in the late 70s. When Buick and Olds buyers found out
and got mad about it, GM had to start adding that famous "engines for
this vehicle supplied by various GM divisions.." disclaimer.

This is much the same fate as the Chrysler slant-6 met. Although it
could have been modernized and- who knows- even made into a 180-200 HP
fuel-injected "Magnum" version in the 90s, its fate was sealed back
around 1980 when all improvements were stopped in favor of developing
the 3.9L v6 that could be built sharing much of the same tooling as the
318 v8 for purely economic reasons. And great was our loss- the 3.9
never amounted to much at all other than a footnote as the base Ram
engine and the middle-option Dakota engine that practically nobody
picked because the 5.2 (318) had more power and virtually the same economy.

[Robert Hancock]

The Ecotec 4-cylinder is probably their first true global/corporate engine:
Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, and (in Europe) Opel are using it,
and Saab was also involved in the design.
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from ***@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

Post by Steve

No disagreements here, but the EPA did not prefer the Olds engine when
it came time for emissions checking, which is why the Chevrolet lives
on :(

You've got cause and effect backward there. GM poured far more resources
into improving the emissions of the Chevrolet engine than it did the
Olds, Pointiac, and Buick because the writing was on the wall that there
would be no need for 3 different identical-displacement v8s in the 80s
and 90s (heck, Ford and Chrysler moved to corporate engines back in the
50s, it amazes me that divisional in-fighting among the GM divisions
managed to keep multiple engine plants going as long as it did!) GM
still doesn't really have a corporate engine- the Gen III v8s are
basically Chevrolet as are the 3400 and 4.3 Vortec v6, the Northstar was
intended to become the 'corporate' engine (and someday actually might)
but basically developed from the Cadillac engine program, Buick still
makes the 3800, and IIRC Pontiac lingers on in charge of the 4-cylinder.
But back to the Olds v8... there's no reason whatsoever that the Olds
could not have been made just as clean as the Chevy if GM hadn't ramped
down on new engineering for it starting in the late 70s or early 80s
with the intent of economizing on engine overhead by standardizing on a
single v8. They had already picked the Chevrolet years before the Olds
was phased out completely in the early 90s. The Chevy lives on strictly
because GM had more production capacity for it than for the Olds engine
and it was cheaper per unit to build. The greater production capacity
for the Chevy was why some Chevy 350s started appearing in Buicks and
Oldsmobiles back in the late 70s. When Buick and Olds buyers found out
and got mad about it, GM had to start adding that famous "engines for
this vehicle supplied by various GM divisions.." disclaimer.
This is much the same fate as the Chrysler slant-6 met. Although it
could have been modernized and- who knows- even made into a 180-200 HP
fuel-injected "Magnum" version in the 90s, its fate was sealed back
around 1980 when all improvements were stopped in favor of developing
the 3.9L v6 that could be built sharing much of the same tooling as the
318 v8 for purely economic reasons. And great was our loss- the 3.9
never amounted to much at all other than a footnote as the base Ram
engine and the middle-option Dakota engine that practically nobody
picked because the 5.2 (318) had more power and virtually the same economy.

[Vuarra]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:38:48 GMT, "Robert Hancock"

Post by Robert Hancock
Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, and (in Europe) Opel are using it,
and Saab was also involved in the design.

And none of the above are really happy with it :-/
Vuarra

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound.)

[k***@hotmail.com]

Post by Robert Hancock
Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, and (in Europe) Opel are using it,
and Saab was also involved in the design.

The 1.8/2.0 4-cylinder that was used in Sunbird was also a GM global
engine of Opel origin.

[k***@hotmail.com]

Post by k***@hotmail.com
The 1.8/2.0 4-cylinder that was used in Sunbird was also a GM global
engine of Opel origin.

Thank goodness they dropped that piece of shit!

Yep, I agree. Way too many of them cracked heads.

We have another "Opel" engine kicking around in
the Cadillac Catera and then new CTS. These are
the nastiest engines ever designed. A belt driven
interference engine that leaks, throws belts, has
poor power....and is just crazy to work on.

Other than that, how is the engine used in the CTS? It is on the way
out, BTW. The new automatic CTS's have a different engine, and the
manuals will eventually. Time will tell if the new engine is a big
improvement. I think it is a "shortstar," a Cadillac northstar with two
cylinders chopped off.

[Neo]

Post by k***@hotmail.com
I think it is a "shortstar," a Cadillac northstar with two
cylinders chopped off.

Not really. The "shortstar", the 3.5 DOHC V6 that dies with
Oldsmobile had a 90 degree V, like the Northstar. However, the new
3.6 DOHC V6 has a 60 degree V. It's totally new, the 1st member of a
new family of V6 engines that should range from 2.8 to 3.9, normally
aspirated, turbo and bi-turbo.

[Steve]

Post by k***@hotmail.com
The 1.8/2.0 4-cylinder that was used in Sunbird was also a GM global
engine of Opel origin.

Thank goodness they dropped that piece of shit!
We have another "Opel" engine kicking around in
the Cadillac Catera and then new CTS. These are
the nastiest engines ever designed. A belt driven
interference engine that leaks, throws belts, has
poor power....and is just crazy to work on.
The sooner this engine is gone, the better.
Ian

The sooner the whole dang butt-ugly CTS is gone, the better. What a pile
of excrement that thing is... and on so MANY levels...

[Elias Rocha]

I have a question. The Ecotec engines are of interference design? I would
like to know because my car (a "chevrolet" astra) has the 1.8 ecotec (code Z
18 XE) engine and is good to know before something happens.

Thanks
Elias Rocha

Post by k***@hotmail.com
The 1.8/2.0 4-cylinder that was used in Sunbird was also a GM global
engine of Opel origin.

Thank goodness they dropped that piece of shit!
We have another "Opel" engine kicking around in
the Cadillac Catera and then new CTS. These are
the nastiest engines ever designed. A belt driven
interference engine that leaks, throws belts, has
poor power....and is just crazy to work on.
The sooner this engine is gone, the better.
Ian

[shiden_kai]

Post by Elias Rocha
I have a question. The Ecotec engines are of interference design? I would
like to know because my car (a "chevrolet" astra) has the 1.8 ecotec (code Z
18 XE) engine and is good to know before something happens.

I'm not sure what car or engine you are referring to here?
It sounds as though your engine has a belt driven cam. That
is not the case with the 2.2 EcoTec engines. In any case, other
then the v-6 belt driven engine in the Cadillac Catera's, there
are "no" GM belt driven engines that are interference.

In the case of the chain driven engines, yes, most of them
are interference engines, but the failure rate of cam chains
is so low that it's not worth worrying about.

Ian

[Elias Rocha]

The car is a Opel Astra but is sold in Mexico as a Chevrolet, The two
engines must be related so I hope the engine is not of interference, I donŽt
know but believe that the engine is belt driven.

The 2.2 Ecotec of the Astra is the same of the Cavalier only, in the Astra
makes 145Hp and the 1.8 makes 125Hp. the engine codes (Opel) are: for the
2.2 -Z 22 SE- and the 1.8 -Z 18 XE-, if I can find more info IŽll post it

This are the specifications for both engines in the Astra manual

Loading Image...

Elias Rocha

Post by shiden_kai
I'm not sure what car or engine you are referring to here?
It sounds as though your engine has a belt driven cam. That
is not the case with the 2.2 EcoTec engines. In any case, other
then the v-6 belt driven engine in the Cadillac Catera's, there
are "no" GM belt driven engines that are interference.
In the case of the chain driven engines, yes, most of them
are interference engines, but the failure rate of cam chains
is so low that it's not worth worrying about.
Ian

[shiden_kai]

Post by Elias Rocha
The car is a Opel Astra but is sold in Mexico as a Chevrolet, The two
engines must be related so I hope the engine is not of interference, I donŽt
know but believe that the engine is belt driven.

The Ecotec engine in the Cavalier is not belt driven. GM does not
use belt driven engines anymore, except the dumbass Opel engine
in the Cadillac Catera/CTS and that will be gone soon. Oh yeah,
we will be getting a new Sprint type car soon....(Daewoo, I think)
and it will no doubt have belt driven engines....but that's about it.

Ian

[kc8adu]

i have seen quite a few olds 307's in b bodies and even trucks into the
early 90's
funny trying to explain to a neighbor that his chevy caprice has an olds
motor!
in this neigborhood mine is the only one with the correct motor to match the
name.and with 335k on it it still shows no signs of dieing.

Post by Steve

No disagreements here, but the EPA did not prefer the Olds engine when
it came time for emissions checking, which is why the Chevrolet lives
on :(

You've got cause and effect backward there. GM poured far more resources
into improving the emissions of the Chevrolet engine than it did the
Olds, Pointiac, and Buick because the writing was on the wall that there
would be no need for 3 different identical-displacement v8s in the 80s
and 90s (heck, Ford and Chrysler moved to corporate engines back in the
50s, it amazes me that divisional in-fighting among the GM divisions
managed to keep multiple engine plants going as long as it did!) GM
still doesn't really have a corporate engine- the Gen III v8s are
basically Chevrolet as are the 3400 and 4.3 Vortec v6, the Northstar was
intended to become the 'corporate' engine (and someday actually might)
but basically developed from the Cadillac engine program, Buick still
makes the 3800, and IIRC Pontiac lingers on in charge of the 4-cylinder.
But back to the Olds v8... there's no reason whatsoever that the Olds
could not have been made just as clean as the Chevy if GM hadn't ramped
down on new engineering for it starting in the late 70s or early 80s
with the intent of economizing on engine overhead by standardizing on a
single v8. They had already picked the Chevrolet years before the Olds
was phased out completely in the early 90s. The Chevy lives on strictly
because GM had more production capacity for it than for the Olds engine
and it was cheaper per unit to build. The greater production capacity
for the Chevy was why some Chevy 350s started appearing in Buicks and
Oldsmobiles back in the late 70s. When Buick and Olds buyers found out
and got mad about it, GM had to start adding that famous "engines for
this vehicle supplied by various GM divisions.." disclaimer.
This is much the same fate as the Chrysler slant-6 met. Although it
could have been modernized and- who knows- even made into a 180-200 HP
fuel-injected "Magnum" version in the 90s, its fate was sealed back
around 1980 when all improvements were stopped in favor of developing
the 3.9L v6 that could be built sharing much of the same tooling as the
318 v8 for purely economic reasons. And great was our loss- the 3.9
never amounted to much at all other than a footnote as the base Ram
engine and the middle-option Dakota engine that practically nobody
picked because the 5.2 (318) had more power and virtually the same economy.

[Neo]

Post by Steve
You've got cause and effect backward there. GM poured far more resources
into improving the emissions of the Chevrolet engine than it did the
Olds, Pointiac, and Buick because the writing was on the wall that there
would be no need for 3 different identical-displacement v8s in the 80s
and 90s

Yep, when submitting an engine for EPA-compliance started clocking at
a few of million bucks a pop. And knowing that the rules would be
ever changing, the need to keep the number of engines down and only
those with lower upgrade cost was a business decision accroding to the
rules of the game.

Don't you just love your government in action?

[Steve]

Post by Daniel J Stern
...but if you go back to when Oldsmobile still made their own V8s, and
compare (for instance) the Chevrolet 350 to the Olds 350, the Olds is the
absolute hands-down winner in every category from durability to
engineering "rightness" (bearing dimensions, rod ratios, etc.) to
efficiency to ease of service to driveability (even with the strangulation
type emission controls of the day). Same with the Olds 455 vs. Chev 454.
GM would've done much, much better to have standardized on the Olds V8s

I mostly agree, although I prefer the short stroke/big bore layout of
the Buick 455 to the Olds 455 for car applications. The Olds 455 is
God's own definition of torque and would have been a superb heavy truck
engine and certainly was great in all those Olds 98s that weighed more
than your average flatbed truck, but I give the nod to the Buick for
midsize cars and performance applications. Not intended in any way as a
slight against the Olds H/O and 442s out there, but the Buick GSX does
hold slightly better performance numbers, especially in Stage II or
Stage III trim.

Post by Daniel J Stern
rather than the cheaper-to-build Chevrolet items. The current iterations
of the Chevrolet engines are quite advanced, and most of the inherent
engineering faults have been worked around

Not to mention that the current Gen III engines have virtually NOTHING
in common with the original small-block Chevy anymore.

[Tero Huikko @pp.inet.fi>]

Post by Steve

Post by Steve
Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.

Well, actually the current engine that comes closest to the old v8's is
the 4.3L Vortec.

I disagree completely. The 4.3 is a sawed-off small-block Chevy. Note
that *no* Chevrolet-designed engine made my list, and the 4.3 isn't even
a whole Chevy engine.

Steve's right. 4.3 has nothing even distant to do with real V8 engines.

Post by Steve
Just my opinion, but GM completely blew it when they phased out the Olds
and Buick v8s and kept the smallblock shivvy. It was OK up to 327 cubic
inches, but bigger than that it has rods too short for its stroke. But
even as a 283, 302, or 327, the stud-mounted rockers aren't strong
enough, the bearings are too small, they never cast the blocks with
enough nickel in the alloy, the oil return holes in the heads are too
small.... the list is long.

Yeah right! A real engine is a '69-'71 Olds 455 rocket with 80cc heads with
larger valves.
Even if it didn't make Steve's list.

-TH

http://drive.to/oldsclub

[Mike Levy]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:27:22 GMT, Tero Huikko

Post by Tero Huikko @pp.inet.fi>

Post by Steve

Post by Steve
Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.

Well, actually the current engine that comes closest to the old v8's is
the 4.3L Vortec.

I disagree completely. The 4.3 is a sawed-off small-block Chevy. Note
that *no* Chevrolet-designed engine made my list, and the 4.3 isn't even
a whole Chevy engine.

Steve's right. 4.3 has nothing even distant to do with real V8 engines.

WHAT?!?!?

The 4.3 uses the same bore and stroke as a 350, just with 2 cylinders
taken from each bank. You could most likely buy a set of pistons,
rings and rods for a 350 and use them in a 4.3, they are THAT similar.
The 195 HP version in the S-series could almost be OVER powered for
the size of the truck. Could you substantiate your comment that the
"4.3 has nothing even distant to do with real V-8 engines"?

Just because the 4.3 is a "sawed-off small-block", doesn't take it out
of the running for good V-6 engines. Because of where its design
comes from, it's probably one of the more durable V-6's out there, the
SBC is a tried-and-true design, if it wasn't there wouldn't be more
aftermarket parts on the market for it than any other engine. Heck,
looking at Ford's and Chevy's sites, the 4.0 in the Ranger makes 7
more HP than the most powerful 4.3 (it makes 200 HP in the Silverado,
computer tuning is the difference I believe) listed at
www.gmpowertrain.com Torque-wise, where it matters in a truck, the
4.3 beats the 4.0 by 22 lb.-ft.. Not too bad considering the 4.3 is
15+ years old, with most changes being in the induction system not the
block, not to mention how far back the SBC goes.

Post by Tero Huikko @pp.inet.fi>

Post by Steve
Just my opinion, but GM completely blew it when they phased out the Olds
and Buick v8s and kept the smallblock shivvy. It was OK up to 327 cubic
inches, but bigger than that it has rods too short for its stroke. But
even as a 283, 302, or 327, the stud-mounted rockers aren't strong
enough, the bearings are too small, they never cast the blocks with
enough nickel in the alloy, the oil return holes in the heads are too
small.... the list is long.

Yeah right! A real engine is a '69-'71 Olds 455 rocket with 80cc heads with
larger valves.
Even if it didn't make Steve's list.
-TH
http://drive.to/oldsclub

[Hardpan]

Post by Steve

Post by Steve
Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.

Well, actually the current engine that comes closest to the old v8's is
the 4.3L Vortec.

I disagree completely. The 4.3 is a sawed-off small-block Chevy. Note
that *no* Chevrolet-designed engine made my list, and the 4.3 isn't even
a whole Chevy engine.
Just my opinion, but GM completely blew it when they phased out the Olds
and Buick v8s and kept the smallblock shivvy. It was OK up to 327 cubic
inches, but bigger than that it has rods too short for its stroke. But
even as a 283, 302, or 327, the stud-mounted rockers aren't strong
enough, the bearings are too small, they never cast the blocks with
enough nickel in the alloy, the oil return holes in the heads are too
small.... the list is long.

Well that does it!!

I'm gonna sell my Chevy 200 HP 4.3 Vortec Pickup.

It only has 260,000 miles on the Odo, doesn't use a drop of oil and
runs 60 PSI oil pressure, never had that pan/heads off and the plugs
are spotless and gets 18-20 MPG.

Yeah, I'm convinced now.

This engine really sucks big time !!!!

[s***@gmail.com]

4.3 is a fantastic reliable powerplant

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by s***@gmail.com
4.3 is a fantastic reliable powerplant

Good to know. Sad that the rest of the car will fall apart around it.

[Paul in Houston TX]

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by s***@gmail.com
4.3 is a fantastic reliable powerplant

Good to know. Sad that the rest of the car will fall apart around it.

That was my experience with the 3.3, too.
Great engine but the rest of the car was junk.

[Vic Smith]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:45:56 -0600, Paul in Houston TX

Post by Paul in Houston TX

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by s***@gmail.com
4.3 is a fantastic reliable powerplant

Good to know. Sad that the rest of the car will fall apart around it.

That was my experience with the 3.3, too.
Great engine but the rest of the car was junk.

I keep a '93 Grand Am as my 2nd car. Still reliable, but I don't
drive it much.

[Paul in Houston TX]

Post by Vic Smith
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:45:56 -0600, Paul in Houston TX

Post by Paul in Houston TX

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by s***@gmail.com
4.3 is a fantastic reliable powerplant

Good to know. Sad that the rest of the car will fall apart around it.

That was my experience with the 3.3, too.
Great engine but the rest of the car was junk.

I keep a '93 Grand Am as my 2nd car. Still reliable, but I don't
drive it much.

My 92 GA was one of the most comfortable and least reliable cars I ever had.
It went 227k mi / 16 years until I got tired of fixing it and junked it.
The last 100k miles averaged ~$300 per month in parts.
I do all my own work.

[Vic Smith]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 13:29:31 -0600, Paul in Houston TX

Post by Paul in Houston TX

Post by Vic Smith
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:45:56 -0600, Paul in Houston TX

Post by Paul in Houston TX

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by s***@gmail.com
4.3 is a fantastic reliable powerplant

Good to know. Sad that the rest of the car will fall apart around it.

That was my experience with the 3.3, too.
Great engine but the rest of the car was junk.

I keep a '93 Grand Am as my 2nd car. Still reliable, but I don't
drive it much.

My 92 GA was one of the most comfortable and least reliable cars I ever had.
It went 227k mi / 16 years until I got tired of fixing it and junked it.
The last 100k miles averaged ~$300 per month in parts.
I do all my own work.

My '93 has only needed a PS pump, water pump, and one window motor.
My son did them. But it needs a TCC solenoid and there's water
leaking in somewhere. Probably the side window weatherstripping.
I just keep it in the garage, and use it for short trips when needed.
I really don't like the car, because it's a 2-door. But I bought it
for my daughter to commute to college, and she gave it to me 6 years
ago when she graduated and got a job.
She bought a Kia Sorento. +30 grand.
I paid 4 grand for the Grand Am about 10 years ago.
It'll keep ticking. It's got about 150k miles on it.
I like having a second car, and this one was "free."
Happy with the 3.3.

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:45:56 -0600, Paul in Houston TX

Post by Paul in Houston TX

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by s***@gmail.com
4.3 is a fantastic reliable powerplant

Good to know. Sad that the rest of the car will fall apart around it.

That was my experience with the 3.3, too.
Great engine but the rest of the car was junk.

Got a 3.1 in a 2000 Malibu with 210,000 miles on it and the original
transmission. It had to have the manifold gaskets replaced plus one
injector at around 80,000 miles. Doesn't burn a drop of oil or leak
any. Eats brakes every 20k miles though.

[k***@hotmail.com]

Since the original poster asked about 3.4 vs 3.8, I suspect that he was
asking about engines used in front-drive cars, not those used in trucks
or out-of-production rear-drive cars. Is that the case, original
poster, if you're still out there?

Post by old dirtbeard

Post by Steve

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?
Daniel

Olds 350, Buick 455, or Cadillac 472.
Of the current engines, the 3.8 comes closest to the old v8s.

Well, actually the current engine that comes
closest to the old v8's is the 4.3L Vortec. It
basically is a Chevy 350 with two cylinders taken
out of the middle, except they now have roller
rockers, roller lifters, cast aluminum oil pans
that bolt into the transmission, balance shaft, a
lot more computing, etc.
I have one in my '03 GMC Savana with a 2,500 lb
payload that got 20.1 MPG on the highway with less
than 2,000 miles on the odometer. It is a very
smooth, very quiet and very torquey (260 lb ft at
a very low 2,800 rpm).
best,
doug

[Daniel]

Sure I `m still out here. The reason for my original question: I plan to go
out shopping for a used GM
sedan, between 2 and 4 years old, with average mileage for the age. Was
wondering what should I go for. Didn`t know then 3.6 was also an engine
option!
Definitely interested in a V6. Probably not a 4 banger.
This discussion got a lot of attention !

Daniel

Post by k***@hotmail.com
Since the original poster asked about 3.4 vs 3.8, I suspect that he was
asking about engines used in front-drive cars, not those used in trucks
or out-of-production rear-drive cars. Is that the case, original
poster, if you're still out there?

Post by Daniel
I was quoted once with GM's engine that was (one of it's) most reliable,
best choice overall ( considering reliability, power, gas mileage, etc) I
can't recall if it was the 3.4 or 3.8 engine, (or maybe even the 3.1) ?
Any toughts?