GM Phasing out 3800 V6?

[Tailfin61]

We could have surmised it was happening. Bittersweet . . . .

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103290

[titan]

I almost shed a tear, reading the article. It's time for the engine to retire, but I'll always love that engine and LeSabre it was put in that my mom drove for years.

[lakefire]

perhaps they will sell it to a company that can still manufacturer. I would still buy it even if GM didn't own it. As long as they didn't change it.

[Stoopsbuick]

I don't always trust the press when it comes to these kinds of things...they also said Buick was on the outs like Olds...which isn't true. The article said it's fuel ecomony, emissions, and reliabilty are world class, who gives a crap about the technology if it does the job. In my opinion they need to keep the engine longer because there's too many old Buick customers that wont buy another engine.

[Bluesman]

  In my opinion they need to keep the engine longer because there's too many old Buick customers that wont buy another engine.

[post="24238"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes but those loyal Buick customers will eventually fade away. GM needs to be looking down the road ahead, not in the rear view mirror. The next generation of Buick owners (my age group) want modern technological advances.

If those remaining older Buick customers are that loyal they'll buy it simply because it's a Buick.

[ponchoman49]

The basic engine design is good but GM tarnished the 95-2005 series II motors with more problems than it should have ever had. Upper and lower intakes and leaky throttle bodies were comon place failures. Several recalls involving new thottle body bolts, leaky steel oil pans and some engines that backfired into the plastic manifold were also in evidence. The fact that this engine remained at the same power levels from 1995-2005 just confirms my theory that GM gave up on this motor years ago. And the series III version only gained 20 hp in s/c version and remained 200 hp in base non s/c. I want so much to agree with everyone about how legendary this motor is but GM has kept me from feeling that way. I have owned 4 cars with this engine. 1998 Grand Prix, 2000 Impala, 2001 LeSabre and a 1997 Olds Delta. The Delta lost it's engine from intake failure and antifreeze being ingested into cylinder number 3. Both the 2000 Impala and 2001 LeSabre needed intake replacements out of warrenty to the sum of $500.00 a pop. The Grand Prix actually lasted till 120K but at that point the engine made a whine, was gruff sounding and noisy and started to slurp gas like a V8 and no one could figure out why. The LeSabre had the best 3800 in my opinion as it was the quietest and seemed to get the best mileage of the bunch.

[rueben44]

I say sell it in China and Asia in some of their small FWD SUV's. It has good gas mileage and power and could be a hit over there.

[razoredge]

they sure messed up with that SII intake. I do like opening the hood to all my cars and knowing I have that engine in all its forms to depend on. They have been very agreeable with me.

I have following 90* B U I C K based engines in cars and running or gone as listed
86 LN7 3.0 LeSabre coupe - restified 150,000 - 80,000 ours
86 LG2 3.8 Riviera - project - 93,000 - none
87 LG3 3.8 spare engine, not in car 87,000 - none
90 LN3-C 3.8 in Regency, on road 328,000 - 14,000 ours
90 ??? 3300 in Ciera Cruiser, on road 190,000 - 18,000 ours
91 L27 in Regal, traded for '99 below at 244,000 - 28,000 ours
99 L36 in Eighty Eight 50th Anniversary - was returned on Lemon Law case @ 80,000 - 10,000 ours
97 L67 Olds LSS our baby, on road 110,000 - 50,000 ours
also have a 84 Turbo Riviera engine laying around but cant vouch for it.
we put 50,000 miles on a 89 NYer in the middle somewhere plus miles on old Oldsmobile 350's and I have a 3.9 Dakota as well.

Thats 1,282,000 miles. Not all ours, we are only responsible for 200,000 miles These engines have done it with minimal attention.

Its not likely Ill run out of Buick V6 powered cars to drive for quite some time and still plan on a 95 or 96 SC Riviera one day as well as a L27 or L36 Regal GS coupe. so while everyones driving "tec" Ill be driving with my wallet fully inplace. B)

[lakefire]

not to mention that you can get a turbo kit for the series II for grand prixs, regals, etc and get 300hp AT THE WHEELS, and 400 lb tq. This engine is not the weak point, it's the transmissions. We rented a lesabre this weekend and it was averaging 30mpg on interstate driving. You find another full size car on the market that can do that w/ 205hp, 240 lb tq.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

yay, maybe they can make the 3.9L get some good gas mileage now... :unsure:

[Paolino]

yay, maybe they can make the 3.9L get some good gas mileage now...  :unsure:

[post="24612"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, now why is the fuel economy so crappy on that engine?!

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Yeah, now why is the fuel economy so crappy on that engine?!

[post="24619"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

im not sure, but now since 3.8L funds will be freed up, they can improve the 3.9....

[bobo]

The Autoweek story has an error in that it mentions that the supercharged version is dropped. As we all know, it's still offered in the Grand Prix GT.

[daves87rs]

The Autoweek story has an error in that it mentions that the supercharged version is dropped.  As we all know, it's still offered in the Grand Prix GT.

[post="24653"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Are you sure? I coulda swore they dropped the s/c'd one in place of the 5.3
in the GXP...

[bobo]

Last year the GTP model had the S/C engine, and it was sold alongside the GXP. This year, the GTP model was dropped, and the GT got the S/C engine.

[jry]

not to mention that you can get a turbo kit for the series II for grand prixs, regals, etc and get 300hp AT THE WHEELS, and 400 lb tq.

This engine is not the weak point, it's the transmissions.  We rented a lesabre this weekend and it was averaging 30mpg on interstate driving.  You find another full size car on the market that can do that w/ 205hp, 240 lb tq.

[post="24590"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

turbo kit?!??! where?

[lakefire]

http://www.3800performance.com/Merchant2/m...ategory_Code=PA

[Cory Wolfe]

I like the Series III Supercharged 3800... The rest, well, not so much. If it being phased out means that it will have to be removed from the Lucerne where it doesn't belong, I don't think I'll shed any tears. They go well with Fieros, but that doesn't warrant it still being produced as used ones will always be plentiful. So... bring on the DOHCs... :D

[lakefire]

People need to quit looking at the technology and start looking at the returns. Here is a tail of two engines: Engine 1: HP: 260 @ 5200 rpm Torque: 280 @ 3600rpm MPG: 18/28 Cost of Ownership: Low to Medium Engine 2: HP: 240 @ 6000rpm Torque: 241 @ 2800rpm MPG: 18/26 Cost of Ownership: Unknown (medium to high) THat's comparing a Supercharged 3800 vs the new 3.9. Of course Cost of Ownership is something I have a feeling about and is not a proven fact. Edited October 6, 2005 by lakefire

[Diognes56]

My Dad's 3800 5spd '96 Camaro was fun (when I got to drive it), gets good gas mileage, and has been reliable for us :D . David Edited October 6, 2005 by Diognes56

[Cory Wolfe]

The 3.9L isn't too technological. It just has VVT, which is almost useless on a push-rod, imo.

[CaddyXLR-V]

The 3.9L isn't too technological. It just has VVT, which is almost useless on a push-rod, imo.

[post="24930"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

VVT has the same effect whether the cams sit on top of the heads, or if the cam is in the block. It's either useless on both, or it isnt useless on both.

[Paolino]

http://www.3800performance.com/Merchant2/m...ategory_Code=PA

[post="24914"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

OMG... I saw $95 for a turbo kit and thought to myself, "What kinda lame-ass turbo kit is 95 bucks!?" then I realized it was shipping LOL

[VenSeattle]

The 3800 won't be phased out until GM can guarantee that it can replace the 3800 with something that won't impact its CAFE. The only reasonable answer is either the OHV HV family or the DOHC HF family (or maybe both) will be getting technology that will allow for an increase in each engine’s average MPG. I don't know what it will be, but MPG will need to improve before the 3800 is put to rest. GM still hasn't debuted DOD or 3 Valves per cylinder on the OHV HV family correct?

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

GM still hasn't debuted DOD or 3 Valves per cylinder on the OHV HV family correct?

[post="24953"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Correct. I do believe the HV engines will finally become direct competitors in power once 3v tech comes on, and perhaps Direct Ignition (torque output will be quite prodigious)

[Paolino]

Correct. I do believe the HV engines will finally become direct competitors in power once 3v tech comes on, and perhaps Direct Ignition (torque output will be quite prodigious)

[post="24954"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Any idea when the 3V OHV engines are going to be worked on?

[NOS2006]

http://www.3800performance.com/Merchant2/m...ategory_Code=PA

[post="24914"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

This one's even better: (well, for me)
http://www.force-fed-fabrications.com/index2.htm

I plan on dropping one in about a year or so from now... Unless 3800 performance releases theirs before then.. Edited December 6, 2005 by NOS2006

[NeonLX]

Wow, that's sad. The 3800 V6 is one of the best V6s on the market as far as I'm concerned--durable, powerful and quite fuel efficient. Up until recently, my mother-in-law had a 1996 Buick Riv with the SC 3800. That car powered up like a V8 but you could still pull 29-30 MPG on the highway. It's a shame to see the 3800 go, along with the Jeep 4.0L inline six--two of my favorite engines.

[Cananopie]

Yea. This is my favorite engine ever. I hope it doesn't go anytime soon, but honestly the article is right, GM is probably ready to "take her out back" like they do to any old horse...

[thegriffon]

It was one of the plant closures mentioned by GM - in 2008 I think it was. Tne 3900 was expected to get AFM (the new name for DOD) in 2006, once noise problems in the valvetrain had been solved.

[Hudson]

perhaps they will sell it to a company that can still manufacturer.  I would still buy it even if GM didn't own it.  As long as they didn't change it.

You mean like they did with it before?

[andretti]

VVT has the same effect whether the cams sit on top of the heads, or if the cam is in the block. It's either useless on both, or it isnt useless on both.

[post="24932"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ah... Not quite! VVT is much less valuable on a in the block CAM engine because there is only one CAM running both the intake and the exhaust valves. This means that the valve timing cnnot be varied independently for each set of valves. In a DOHC the CAM timing can vary differently for the intake and exhaust valves. This is a much better solution.

[Hudson]

Ah... Not quite!  VVT is much less valuable on a in the block CAM engine because there is only one CAM running both the intake and the exhaust valves.  This means that the valve timing cnnot be varied independently for each set of valves.  In a DOHC the CAM timing can vary differently for the intake and exhaust valves.  This is a much better solution.

Or you could go without a cam altogether...which seems like an even better solution.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

GM needs to put their twin cam pushrod technology into production B)

[razoredge]

I just hope the replacement is capable of 200-300,000 hands off reliability. Not likely, cant have that with complecated twin cams, cnat have that with complicated vavle systems. I think the new cars are going to all be throw away cars after the second owner gets tired of inheriting the expensive replacement cost of wear items, like water pumps, timing chains, tired engine management systems and what not.

[ponchoman49]

I just hope the replacement is capable of 200-300,000 hands off reliability. Not likely, cant have that with complecated twin cams, cnat have that with complicated vavle systems. I think the new cars are going to all be throw away cars after the second owner gets tired of inheriting the expensive replacement cost of wear items, like water pumps, timing chains, tired engine management systems and what not.

[post="54067"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yup this is the direction of the 21st Century. Everything is cheaply made and throw away. Gosh I hope we find room to toss out all our 2 year old obsolete rubbish so we can go purchase our new soon to be obsolete stuff. :rolleyes: