Difference Between 3800 and 3900?

[NOS2006]

They're the same size (231ci/3791cc), but the 3900 has more power and can have DOD. Is the 3900 simply a more modern 3800 with a slightly bigger crank?

[VenSeattle]

If I remember correctly, there's no relation between the 3900 & 3800. The new 3900 is part of the same family of "High Value" OV engines that the new 3.5l (Impala & Monte Carlo) belongs to.

[thegriffon]

The LZ9 is 3880 cc, (237 ci) and uses a completely different 60deg block.

[razoredge]

completely different family tree, totally unrelated

[Northstar]

The GM Media site used to say that the 3900 was the same exact CCs as the 3800, but it appears they have since changed it. And no, they aren't related at all.

[Sixty8panther]

One of the problems wiht GM is they have to have like 43 effin engines at the same time. Jezzus. Spruce up the 3800 and keep that... make a couple versitile small V6s... we already have several ecotec variations, and then just give Caddy an V8, V8SC V12 and V16 versions of the N0* and a LS7 for the next CTS-V. Then you've got the atlas engines and LS pushrod V8s. DONE!!!! Save the damned development money for the Caprice, Roadmaster and Velite.

[91z4me]

One of the problems wiht GM is they have to have like 43 effin engines at the same time.

Jezzus. Spruce up the 3800 and keep that... make a couple versitile small V6s... we already have several ecotec variations, and then just give Caddy an V8, V8SC V12 and V16 versions of the N0* and a LS7 for the next CTS-V.

Then you've got the atlas engines and LS pushrod V8s. DONE!!!!

Save the damned development money for the Caprice, Roadmaster and Velite.

[post="62359"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

OR they cold do what they do now:

Kill the 3800 a great engine but not up to snuff anymore.
have a HV 3.5 and 3.9 sharing many parts
have a HF 3.6 and 2.5 sharing parts
N* and N* SC
4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2 sharing many parts and the 7.0 sharing a few.

Throw in the Atlas engines and it is a VERY well rounded lineup.

[razoredge]

Yea, Im OK with it, I just wish the gas milage was up on the 3.9, Im afraid of the effect that will have on marketing it. Now, I do hope they put the Eaton M90 on the 3.9 for ultra performance, that should be kickin 280/300 - 300/320 with same mileage under normal driving conditions. AND it will have that sound and insane powerband that just keeps commin and commin. I just cant think about the 38, its way to close to home and the last grain left from Buicks life saving contribution. Edit: for that matter with the 3.5 doing so much better for gas milage that should also have a M90 option. I would expect it could smoke this NA3.9 & the FWD NA3.6 as well. Edited December 22, 2005 by razoredge

[Cremazie]

The 4.8V8 is the engine I don't get... it's too close to the 5.3 in the numbers.. kill the 4.8

[76ChevyTrucker]

I say kill the 4.8 and the 5.3, I know they're good engines and designed on a tried and true base, but seriously, what was wrong with the 305 and 350?

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

I say kill the 4.8 and the 5.3, I know they're good engines and designed on a tried and true base, but seriously, what was wrong with the 305 and 350?

[post="77724"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

gas mileage maybe?

[caddycruiser]

The 4.8V8 is the engine I don't get... it's too close to the 5.3 in the numbers.. kill the 4.8

[post="62472"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree. I'm all for keeping the 5.3L, as it seems to have hit on a perfect combo of size/power/economy/durability, but see absolutely no reason for the 4.8L.

It's like they just keep it around just to SAY they offer another V8...even though it'll soon lack things like the DOD and power increase that is making the 5.3L even more attractive.

That said, it's dumb to keep offering it as the "base" engine in Tahoes and some Silverados--just put the 5.3L in all of those, and save any extra dimes you get from not having to offer both for future improvements on the 5.3L.

It's like the dumb combo of a 305 vs. a 350...the only difference being that there was actually quite a noticeable difference in power between the two (the 305 pretty much sucking, at least stock in most apps), and the 350 making you wonder, "Why the hell do they even bother offering the 305?"

[lakefire]

Kill the 3800 a great engine but not up to snuff anymore.

[post="62361"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

How do you reckon that? The weakness isn't the 3800 it's the transmissions they tie to it. With a turbocharger you can easily output 350hp at the wheels. They get great gas mileage, great reliability, and great power. My only complaints would be it's sound and it's idle. But besides that I would say it's the best engine that GM has ever produced.

[91z4me]

How do you reckon that?  The weakness isn't the 3800 it's the transmissions they tie to it.  With a turbocharger you can easily output 350hp at the wheels.  They get great gas mileage, great reliability, and great power.  My only complaints would be it's sound and it's idle.  But besides that I would say it's the best engine that GM has ever produced.

[post="77897"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The majority of the parts used in the 3800 date back to the 1950s. The engine was great while it lasted but come on we are still using it 60 years later! The 3900 is more compact, lighter, cheaper to assemble, offers more versatility in things that can be used on it(DOD, VVT, variable intake), better NVH, better balance. Give me 1 good reason why the 3800 should still be used when the 3900 beats it in EVERY single category of testing.

BTW don't throw well you can turbo it and get this because anything you can do to the 3800 you can do to the 3900.

Edit:

To those saying why keep the 4.8 around think of one thing. Everyone that wants the 5.3 pays for it. It is an upgrade engine and therefore costs more. More cost=more money. Edited January 21, 2006 by 91z4me

[Paolino]

The majority of the parts used in the 3800 date back to the 1950s.  The engine was great while it lasted but come on we are still using it 60 years later!  The 3900 is more compact, lighter, cheaper to assemble, offers more versatility in things that can be used on it(DOD, VVT, variable intake), better NVH, better balance.  Give me 1 good reason why the 3800 should still be used when the 3900 beats it in EVERY single category of testing.

BTW don't throw well you can turbo it and get this because anything you can do to the 3800 you can do to the 3900.

Edit:

To those saying why keep the 4.8 around think of one thing.  Everyone that wants the 5.3 pays for it.  It is an upgrade engine and therefore costs more.  More cost=more money.

[post="77899"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not that I'm saying we should keep the 3800 around longer, but the fuel economy of the 3900 has been, well, poor.

[Flybrian]

Give me 1 good reason why the 3800 should still be used when the 3900 beats it in EVERY single category of testing.

[post="77899"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Until GM can produce a decent successor engine that has the same extrodinarily-low emissions standards and great fuel economy.

[razoredge]

The majority of the parts used in the 3800 date back to the 1950s.  The engine was great while it lasted but come on we are still using it 60 years later!

OK! credibility out the window you have no idea WTF you are talking about.

The 3900 is more compact -BS-, lighter, -how much, 10 lb's ?- cheaper to assemble, -BS- offers more versatility in things that can be used on it(DOD, VVT, variable intake), better NVH, better balance. -yea, yea, yea, maybe however nothing has been proven yet, and there nothing there that could not have been applied to the 38 including aluminum heads, yet becasue of all the 60* crybabys GM gave up on the best engine they ever developed.-  Give me 1 good reason why the 3800 should still be used when the 3900 beats it in EVERY single category of testing. -yea, yea, yea, nothing has been proven yet except that gas milage is worse than SC 3800, torque is down from SC 3800, reliability has never been as good for the 60* family....does any of this critiera fall into that "EVERY single catagory" ?....how many versions has their been of the "Chevy 60*" ? They tried this and they tried that, had this failure and that failure, but yet the 38 just kept on a going.-

BTW don't throw well you can turbo it and get this because anything you can do to the 3800 you can do to the 3900. -yea, yea, yea, but everything that has been done to the inferior 60* family could have been done to the 38....as well, and GM would not have had to look back-

**Im not opposed to the 3900 or the recent 3500 but once again BS is BS, your talking about an engine that has been ignored for the most part since 1995, yet is still superior.**

[post="77899"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Edited January 30, 2006 by razoredge

[91z4me]

[post="81945"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

OK Razor here we go. I am talking outta my BUTT? My bad the 3800 dates back to the 60s not the 50s I made a mistake, sue me. Want the full history?
http://www.gnttype.org/general/v6hist.html

Now about this well it could have been done to the 3800. Check this out 60° V6 engines are smoother running. Who else besides GM makes a 90° V6? Mercedes does based on their 3 valve OHC V8s. That is IT! NOBODY else makes them does that tell you something.

I will BET MONEY that the 3900 IS more compact than the 3800. It is a 60° V6 that has the same size block as the 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 V6 GM has been refining since the early 80s! The 3900 achieves its more compact design while getting more displacement by using offset bore centers, insiders could go into more detail about how this was done I frankly don't know. The 3800 uses equal bore centers AND it is wider, taller, and heavier than the 3900 despite both having IRON blocks. The 3900 would still be lighter if both had IRON heads but it doesn't it has aluminum heads.

The 3800 crybabies need to get over the fact that GM has moved on beyond their old outdated engine. The 3.5 shortstar should have replaced the 3800 in 2000 when it came online for the Intrigue, but NO the penny pinchers at Pontiac and Buick wanted to squeeze every dollar they could out of the damn boat anchor 3800 before being forced to change it out nearly 10 years later. If Olds didn't have to use its own budget on the 4.0 and 3.5 Olds motors and the grannies at Buick and Pontiac would have chipped in a little bit Olds might still be around. But instead of using a more advanced, smoother, better gas mileage motor (which there were performance variations developed making 270 hp BTW) they decided to stick with the old "tired and true" 3800.

Perhaps we would all be driving BOF box cars of the 80s if people like you had your way. GET WITH THE PROGRAM "Gramps" the 3800 is DEAD and it had way to many stays of execution for its own good.

I will give it to those that designed, built, and improved it over the years that they did a great job BUT if the 3900 had been in production since the 70s with only little tweeks here and there it should be pretty bullet proof too.

And don't try that it could have been done to the 3800 because there was more than enough stuff done to it to give it the edge. Also I would like it noted that the 3900 beats the 3800 NA top to bottom, even you must see that. When the 3900 SC comes out I am SURE you will think it is the second coming because it makes more power, gets better gas mileage and la deda deda than the 3800 SC. Until then how about you pull your head out of the sand, go drive a 3900 car, or better yet a LS4 car and see what the real wold can do NOW!

[97regalGS]

what's with the argument? we all know that DOHC engines are ALL superior to the inferior pushrods that GM is flogging. :P :P :P

[razoredge]

Sorry pally your still talking out your ass. Dont get mad at me because you came around spredding nonsence and I stood up to it. That story on gnttype is only page one, you have no credibility on this and have shown it but dont worry, 10 other uninformed people will read your BS and believe it, just like you apparently have. That story on gntype only takes that engine up through 88 or maybe the TP of 90, which is after 3 complete retools. It has undergone 2 more since. In fact if you had read it you would have never made your comment becasue it clearly outline in 1988 that the engine was a complete retool.

No one here needs to have a problem about what ever is going on with the 38 until some uninformed like yourself pulls up and wants to start throwing nonsence and dirt, when it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Now are you going to tell us all about the carburated 2.8 that dates back to the late 70's as well ?.........well are you ?

There is no arguement, the 38 came together and worked out real well, I doubt great engineers could even explain why, if they had the secret formula and understanding they would not have pondered for the past two decades how to build a better engine to replace it with, though they tried over and over and over. Now finally all hope is on this 3.9 but its not delievering, mileage is a bit low, torque suffered and the VVT is not working.................................................................

[97regalGS]

i'm no technical person, but isn't the LS7 based on a 1950's design? i suspect there is more to the 90degree vs 60 degree decision made by GM that we are not aware of. probably GM needed a souple of versions/sizes to go into a bunch of cars and 60 offered more choice. as for which one is better? hard to say. all i know is the 3.8 was the engine upgrade over the 3.4 in the Impala! :P and if GM had decided to invest into a Series 4 version of the 38, it would have been a heck of an engine i expect. as for the 3.5 in the Intrigue. wasn't that GM's second attempt at a DOHC (after the 3.4? what happened to that one?) and wasn't it a NS with 2 cylinders lopped off? but expecting Buick to dump the workhorse 38 for the new 3.5 would have been a tough sell at the time. alas, all that is history. the LS family gets high praise, the DOHC family is getting decent press and the 60 degree are luke warm being renamed valve in head (or something like that) instead of pushrod. I'm sure the new name will address all the concerns the media has. :P :P

[razoredge]

OK Razor here we go.  I am talking outta my BUTT?  My bad the 3800 dates back to the 60s not the 50s I made a mistake, sue me.  Want the full history?
http://www.gnttype.org/general/v6hist.html

Now about this well it could have been done to the 3800.  Check this out 60° V6 engines are smoother running. - I do appreaciate your informing me about bank angles and such.....thanks so much.....however Ill pass judgement on the quality of an engine on more important things than simply bank angle -  Who else besides GM makes a 90° V6? -See below, who would want to take candy from a baby when your around, so much more fun-  Mercedes does based on their 3 valve OHC V8s.  That is IT!  NOBODY else makes them does that tell you something.

I will BET MONEY that the 3900 IS more compact than the 3800.  It is a 60° V6 that has the same size block as the 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 V6 GM has been refining since the early 80s! Wow they took that same 2.8 litre block and turned it into a 3.9....1100cc extre out of the same size block....that engine is a phenom....:unsure: ......OK The 3900 achieves its more compact design while getting more displacement by using offset bore centers, - :rolleyes: offset bore centers create a longer block- insiders could go into more detail about how this was done I frankly don't know. -I can tell - The 3800 uses equal bore centers AND it is wider -90* is wider-, taller -60* is taller-, and heavier -OK but how much ?- than the 3900 despite both having IRON blocks.  The 3900 would still be lighter if both had IRON heads but it doesn't it has aluminum heads. -and you know this...how ? the lighter part ?-

The 3800 crybabies need to get over the fact that GM has moved on beyond their old outdated engine.  The 3.5 shortstar -S* was a 90* V6- :blink:  should have replaced the 3800 in 2000 when it came online for the Intrigue, but NO the penny pinchers at Pontiac and Buick wanted to squeeze every dollar they could out of the damn boat anchor 3800 before being forced to change it out nearly 10 years later. -no there were far to many cars demanding quality V6 engines so GM stuck with the highest quality, highest production V6-  If Olds didn't have to use its own budget on the 4.0 and 3.5 Olds motors and the grannies at Buick and Pontiac would have chipped in a little bit Olds might still be around. -grannies? chippin in ? OK, glad you know what happend to Olds-  :unsure: But instead of using a more advanced, smoother, better gas mileage motor (which there were performance variations developed making 270 hp BTW) they decided to stick with the old "tired and true" 3800. -high performance SC3800 are putting over 350 to the ground, and stock SC 3800 had superior mileage to the stock S*.-

Perhaps we would all be driving BOF box cars of the 80s if people like you had your way. -people like me ? hmm ?, sounds like an attack-  GET WITH THE PROGRAM "Gramps" - now that was an attack, I wonder how many warnings you have recieved, I have been watching you and your attacks and insults of other posters for a few months now, I wonder if the moderaters will ever call you on it ? - the 3800 is DEAD and it had way to many stays of execution for its own good. - I realize this statement was based on your extreme understanding of these engines..........but..........I will continue this as long as you are willing - we'll get into CAFE, fleet mileage requirements and necessary power outputs needed for large GM cars that the 60* family could not previously meet.......thank gawd for that VVT ey ? -

I will give it to those that designed, built, and improved it over the years that they did a great job BUT if the 3900 had been in production since the 70s with only little tweeks here and there it should be pretty bullet proof too. - the 60* family has been in development since the 70's and has recieved as many or more revamps as the 90* but it just never pulled it off, while its not the worst engine GM has had on the market it has had its share of reliability problems........but now were to that other GM perception topic.-

And don't try that it could have been done to the 3800 because there was more than enough stuff done to it to give it the edge.  Also I would like it noted that the 3900 beats the 3800 NA top to bottom, - its tuned different and has shown better hp with a comparitive loss of torque, its larger, its a upgrade that came 10 years after the 38 last one, and it gets poorer mileage...... "even you must see that."- When the 3900 SC comes out I am SURE you will think it is the second coming because it makes more power, gets better gas mileage - but its not getting better mileage-  :unsure:  and la deda deda than the 3800 SC.  Until then how about you pull your head out of the sand, go drive a 3900 car, or better yet a LS4 car - I have, reminded me alot of my L67 - and see what the real wold can do NOW! - hop down off that horse, Ill let you know when Im impressed and I wont be as easily as you -

Once again ! **Im not opposed to the 3900 or the recent 3500 but once again BS is BS, your talking about an engine that has been ignored for the most part since 1995, yet is still superior.**The 3.9 is just a replacement engine that has recieved a few advancement, that could be giving to any engine, however the verdict on the 3.9 is years away from being known

[post="82044"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[91z4me]

[post="82116"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I have NEVER been warned by a moderator. I won't be because I am not the one who started this. I simply am defending my position against someone who wants to keep old outdated tech, when GM is clearly not doing this. Wanna keep responding go ahead I am out.

[razoredge]

I simply am defending my position against someone who wants to keep old outdated tech

Alrighty then, let me direct you to a post I made on this topic over a month ago.

Yea, Im OK with it, I just wish the gas milage was up on the 3.9, Im afraid of the effect that will have on marketing it. Now, I do hope they put the Eaton M90 on the 3.9 for ultra performance, that should be kickin 280/300 - 300/320 with same mileage under normal driving conditions. AND it will have that sound and insane powerband that just keeps commin and commin. I just cant think about the 38, its way to close to home and the last grain left from Buicks life saving contribution.

Edit: for that matter with the 3.5 doing so much better for gas milage that should also have a M90 option. I would expect it could smoke this NA3.9 & the FWD NA3.6 as well.

[post="62460"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I won't be because I am not the one who started this.

Alrighty then, let me direct you to the "starting point"

The majority of the parts used in the 3800 date back to the 1950s.  The engine was great while it lasted but come on we are still using it 60 years later!

at which point I replied

OK! credibility out the window you have no idea WTF you are talking about.

Cant have people passing around misinformed information, it creates a bad "buzz" Im glad you understand the situation and the truth now.

[trinacriabob]

Not that I'm saying we should keep the 3800 around longer, but the fuel economy of the 3900 has been, well, poor.

[post="81665"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The 3900 - I had it in an Impala rental....competent: yes....quiet and good gas mileage, even like Chevy's previous 3.4: no Edited February 3, 2006 by trinacriabob

[trinacriabob]

completely different family tree, totally unrelated

[post="62318"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think Chevy 3100, 3400 and new 3500/3900 are derivatives off the same tree. This may even include the previous 2.8 around in the late 80s that went into the inagural 88 Regal and then was replaced next year by the 3100.

Buick's 3800 stands alone. It has had two derivates to my knowledge: the 3300 which lasted into the mid 90s in the Century and then, in the 80s, the 4.1 litre V6 (or 252 cu in) which in some applications had a 4 bbl carb. LOL. That larger engine made it into the LeSabres, Parks and even some Cadillacs of the early 80s. I will still see some Cads with the tiny 4.1 badge and I have to laugh.

Chevy's 4.3 Vortec also stands alone. It is a sliced Chevy 350.

The difference among these is that the first batch are all 60 degree engines while the latter 2 paragraphs refer to 90 degree engines.

I've only owned a couple of 3800s. I certainly like the engine sound better than that of the 3400/3500/3900. On the few occasions I've driven 3300 equipped cars, those, too, have turned out to be fairly pleasing to the ear and I understand that it too is a long-lasting motor.

[CaddyXLR-V]

The 3.8 SC is a good engine, but they need an equally good tranny behind them. I'm having problems with mine(60k miles) but I dont know whats wrong yet, going to the tranny shop tomorrow. All I have done so far is a reprogrammed PCM, and smaller pulley, good for about 20-30hp/torque, and my trans is having problems less than a week later. I hope its just a computer issue, and nothing internal in the tranny, but we'll see.

[trinacriabob]

The 3.8 SC is a good engine, but they need an equally good tranny behind them. I'm having problems with mine(60k miles) but I dont know whats wrong yet, going to the tranny shop tomorrow. All I have done so far is a reprogrammed PCM, and smaller pulley, good for about 20-30hp/torque, and my trans is having problems less than a week later. I hope its just a computer issue, and nothing internal in the tranny, but we'll see.

[post="84799"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Let us know. I am sure some are curious.

[razoredge]

[post="84795"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

BOb - the FWD 3.0 90* Buick V6 was on market before the 3.8 believe it or not, I think it was one year, but Id have to look it up. Its in the link that 91z4me posted above. So we had the 3.0 & 3.8 until their complete retool engines the 3800 & 3300 were ready for market. Also some info that should help those not understanding why the 3.6 is not currently in every car GM has :rolleyes: The 2.8 & 3.1 were also used in Buicks and Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs because it was hard to meet the production needs just from the 38. The 38 was just available for the higher end BOP cars.

Also the 4.1 V8 Caddy engine is not the same as the RWD 4.1 Buick V6, the Caddy was a 4.1 V8, completely different and so was its reputation, at least in the FWD cars. Another interesting note on the RWD 4.1 Buick, it was the standard engine in the FWD Riv, the big one, you know, 79-85 (confused :unsure: ). The 4.1 had more HP than the 307 Olds V8 yet Americas frame of mind was "gotta have a V8" so most all Rivieras were delivered with the 307. This once again shows why and or how GM was slow to answer the call that today they are blamed for. America didnt want the call..at that time...damned if the did and damned if they didnt.

another interesting note is there was a FWD 4.1 V6 diesel...RARE ! Very rare, I also forget the details on that one.

So Bob ? Your saying the 3.9 achieved decent gas milage ? Compared to your Regal ? The EPA stats show it to be a tad low compared to competition.......I still say screw these V6's and let GM have all sizes of aluminum V8's with DOD....then Ill never have to have another V6 arguement again :P Im serious. I want 3 & 4 litre V8 added to the current lineup and forget the damn v6's. Want smooth.... you got it, want sound......you got it....V8! 90*, compact, lightweight. I predict we will see GM build smaller displacement v8's.

[razoredge]

The 3.8 SC is a good engine, but they need an equally good tranny behind them. I'm having problems with mine(60k miles) but I dont know whats wrong yet, going to the tranny shop tomorrow. All I have done so far is a reprogrammed PCM, and smaller pulley, good for about 20-30hp/torque, and my trans is having problems less than a week later. I hope its just a computer issue, and nothing internal in the tranny, but we'll see.

[post="84799"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Oh boy :( Have you been pounding it ? Whats it doing ? What are the boys at the GP or Regal forums saying ? Where did you get your PCM ? Doesnt Thrasher recommend tranny shift kit to avoid that ssssssslow, sssslippage, into the nnnnnnnext gear. ? See your over 300lb ft now, thats alot of torque.

Please, please insist you stay with your car at the tranny shop, keep the keys in your pocket and go on the test drive. If they ask for the keys, say "I'll wait and go out with your man". Shops are in the business to make money, they will gladly sell you a rebuild...that does not mean you need one. Never......never leave a car unarmed and alone with a "tec", sure there are good ones but who has the time and wallet to figure out who the honest ones are.

The nim wits at Olds dealership rebuilt that tranny in the 99 "88" Anniversary I had, that was not the problem......there was some sort of irratic line pressure problem, possibly caused by PCM or some other glitch in the electrical part of the tranny system or valve bodies. Sometimes it shuttered most of the time it did not, sometimes the engine hesitated and fell on its face for 3-4 seconds....most of the time it ran perfectly.

[trinacriabob]

BOb - the FWD 3.0 90* Buick V6 was on market before the 3.8 believe it or not, I think it was one year, but Id have to look it up. Its in the link that 91z4me posted above. So we had the 3.0 & 3.8 until their complete retool engines the 3800 & 3300 were ready for market. Also some info that should help those not understanding why the 3.6 is not currently in every car GM has  :rolleyes: The 2.8 & 3.1 were also used in Buicks and Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs because it was hard to meet the production needs just from the 38. The 38 was just available for the higher end BOP cars.

[post="84857"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You're right. You're right. There was a 3.0 badge on the earliest FWD Centuries.

[trinacriabob]

So Bob ? Your saying the 3.9 achieved decent gas milage ? Compared to your Regal ? The EPA stats show it to be a tad low compared to competition.......I still say screw these V6's and let GM have all sizes of aluminum V8's with DOD....then Ill never have to have another V6 arguement again  :P Im serious. I want 3 & 4 litre V8 added to the current lineup and forget the damn v6's. Want smooth.... you got it, want sound......you got it....V8! 90*, compact, lightweight. I predict we will see GM build smaller displacement v8's.

[post="84857"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It was good, but it wasn't great. Probably 26 to 27, mostly highway. I just didn't like it. On the other hand, I had an Impala with a 3400 that was repeatedly netting 32 to 33 on the open highway. Unbelievable for such a large sled.

I like small displacement V8s, too. I just want the mileage from them. My favorite small V8 of all time was the super quiet and smooth Olds Rocket 260 V8 found primarily in Cutlass Supremes.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Oh boy  :(  Have you been pounding it ? Whats it doing ? What are the boys at the GP or Regal forums saying ? Where did you get your PCM ? Doesnt Thrasher recommend tranny shift kit to avoid that ssssssslow, sssslippage, into the nnnnnnnext gear. ? See your over 300lb ft now, thats alot of torque.

Please, please insist you stay with your car at the tranny shop, keep the keys in your pocket and go on the test drive. If they ask for the keys, say "I'll wait and go out with your man". Shops are in the business to make money, they will gladly sell you a rebuild...that does not mean you need one. Never......never leave a car unarmed and alone with a "tec", sure there are good ones but who has the time and wallet to figure out who the honest ones are.

The nim wits at Olds dealership rebuilt that tranny in the 99 "88" Anniversary I had, that was not the problem......there was some sort of irratic line pressure problem, possibly caused by PCM or some other glitch in the electrical part of the tranny system or valve bodies. Sometimes it shuttered most of the time it did not, sometimes the engine hesitated and fell on its face for 3-4 seconds....most of the time it ran perfectly.

[post="84865"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm hoping it's due to the programming in the PCM, but we'll see. It is a DHP PCM from ZZPerformance.com. I think I narrowed the problem down to the 3rd to 4th upshift. It feels like it slips, and takes a few seconds to shift, then slams into 4th. 1st-2nd, and 2nd-3rd dont seem to have the same problem though.

[razoredge]

I'm hoping it's due to the programming in the PCM, but we'll see. It is a DHP PCM from ZZPerformance.com. I think I narrowed the problem down to the 3rd to 4th upshift. It feels like it slips, and takes a few seconds to shift, then slams into 4th. 1st-2nd, and 2nd-3rd dont seem to have the same problem though.

[post="84904"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That sounds like "torque management" gone astray.

[razoredge]

You're right.  You're right.  There was a 3.0 badge on the earliest FWD Centuries.

[post="84886"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Our 86 LeSabre Limited has the 3.0 in it. :AH-HA_wink: Was the standard engine in Lesabre in 86, 3.8 was optional. In 87 all H bodies had 3.8, the 3.0 went elsewhere, Skylark, GA, Century ?

[razoredge]

It was good, but it wasn't great.  Probably 26 to 27, mostly highway.  I just didn't like it.  On the other hand, I had an Impala with a 3400 that was repeatedly netting 32 to 33 on the open highway.  Unbelievable for such a large sled.

I like small displacement V8s, too.  I just want the mileage from them.  My favorite small V8 of all time was the super quiet and smooth Olds Rocket 260 V8 found primarily in Cutlass Supremes.

[post="84887"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

32 :blink: , no way ?

our LSS only does 26-27 at 74-8? highway. Thats all I ever got from the 38 though I never checked the Regal, it was about 400 lb lighter than large H bodies. My wife has reported that she used less gas with the 97 LSS (L67) than the old 90 Regency with the older LN3-C engine. The power difference is great 75hp/? 70 ft lb ?

the small displacements V8 with DOD would get excellent milage and are more easy to work with than V6. No fighting the balance issues, more ignitions per revolution

[trinacriabob]

32  :blink: , no way ?

[post="84960"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Shouldn't be a surprise. The EPA sticker on 3400 Montes and Impalas has been 21/32 for several years. And it delivered that.

On mine, the EPA sticker was 18/28 and that's what it returns.

Keep in mind, that 1 or 2 mpg difference over a year make a minimal dent in your wallet. You should drive what you like.

[razoredge]

The 3400 must have been quite nice in an Alero then ? I passed on a white 3400 two dr., forget the years but I passed on that an one Intrigue for the '99 :rolleyes: It was some car though, just ran picular and moody.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I took my car to the tranny shop today. He wont be able to take it apart til Monday, but he thinks it is the 3rd to 4th clutch. I will be spending $2200, though it was only $900-$1300 for a rebuilt back to stock. I figure that since I'm going to be intercooling it in the future I would have it built to handle it now, while its already being rebuilt. So I'm getting a high stall converter, upgrading the clutches, and a shift kit. He's also going to do some research on the 4t65e to see if I'll need anything else to handle that much power, which when I intercool it, I expect to be at about 330hp, 370ft/lbs of torque. I'll post more on Monday once he has it apart and shows me what the problem was.

[razoredge]

:( that doesn make any sence to me. Do you do alot of WOT up through the gears ? I cant understand why you would have probelms at that many miles ? Well if you wanted it built anyhow I guess, what about LSD ? Im just glad I dont have to cough up for a rebuild. We have never had a tranny go........the one in my 90 Regency was rebuilt at high 200,000, it came with reciepts. At 110,000 the LSS still shifts as good as it did at 60,000 which was good, except for that torque management issue. We dont pound it much, though I did get a story just yesterday about two cars and one Explorer or similar, run three side by side on the interstate.......damn woman! She said that big vehical was fast and "he was crazy" :lol: She smokes cars all the time..... so I hear, I guess the guys like to mess with her. you'll need a cam to go with that cooler, the camshaft is actually a cheap modification if you could do the work yourself. I only dream.

[CaddyXLR-V]

:( that doesn make any sence to me. Do you do alot of WOT up through the gears ? I cant understand why you would have probelms at that many miles ?

Well if you wanted it built anyhow I guess, what about LSD ? Im just glad I dont have to cough up for a rebuild. We have never had a tranny go........the one in my 90 Regency was rebuilt at high 200,000, it came with reciepts. At 110,000 the LSS still shifts as good as it did at 60,000 which was good, except for that torque management issue. We dont pound it much, though I did get a story just yesterday about two cars and one Explorer or similar, run three side by side on the interstate.......damn woman! She said that big vehical was fast and "he was crazy"  :lol: She smokes cars all the time..... so I hear, I guess the guys like to mess with her.

you'll need a cam to go with that cooler, the camshaft is actually a cheap modification if you could do the work yourself. I only dream.

[post="86680"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm still deciding about the cam, and also headers. But about my tranny, I thought the fluid and filter were changed at 50,000 miles which was before I owned it, but now I'm starting to think it wasn't changed. I do pretty much all the work myself, except tranny work.

[Bizz]

I took my car to the tranny shop today. He wont be able to take it apart til Monday, but he thinks it is the 3rd to 4th clutch. I will be spending $2200, though it was only $900-$1300 for a rebuilt back to stock. I figure that since I'm going to be intercooling it in the future I would have it built to handle it now, while its already being rebuilt. So I'm getting a high stall converter, upgrading the clutches, and a shift kit. He's also going to do some research on the 4t65e to see if I'll need anything else to handle that much power, which when I intercool it, I expect to be at about 330hp, 370ft/lbs of torque.
I'll post more on Monday once he has it apart and shows me what the problem was.

[post="85446"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

you should seriously consider upgrading to a single drive chain if you want it to last. iirc, chain stretch is the leading cause for hardpart failure. this will also allow you to change the FDR from 2.93 to 3.29 or 3.69. with a FDR change, you will need a new reluctor wheel for the VSS or your shift points will be off and cause you trouble. after that, you can either have the PCM reflashed for the new FDR or wire in a recalibrator. best thing would be to get a PCM editor and ake the changes yourself.

there are LOTS of improvements that can be done. make sure your guy does his homework.

[CaddyXLR-V]

you should seriously consider upgrading to a single drive chain if you want it to last. iirc, chain stretch is the leading cause for hardpart failure. this will also allow you to change the FDR from 2.93 to 3.29 or 3.69. with a FDR change, you will need a new reluctor wheel for the VSS or your shift points will be off and cause you trouble. after that, you can either have the PCM reflashed for the new FDR or wire in a recalibrator. best thing would be to get a PCM editor and ake the changes yourself.

there are LOTS of improvements that can be done. make sure your guy does his homework.

[post="87648"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Have you done any of them? And would I really benefit from 3.29 gears or will that just spin the tires more?

[Bizz]

Have you done any of them? And would I really benefit from 3.29 gears or will that just spin the tires more?

[post="87670"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i bought a complete built unit with 3.69s (single-chain), hardened input shaft, 3000 stall TC, shiftkit, etc with fixes for the known weak points a couple of years ago. and yes, you will benefit, as far as performance, with a gear change. you may spin easier, but you'll be quicker when you arent. just buy better tires. :)

there is a site, somewhere, that lists some of the known problem areas. i'll see if i can find it for your guy. he should also research GP forums for info. and the ecotec buildbook .pdf has some good info on the tranny since the 4t65 is used in their FWD drag cars. GMR will, or has already, come out with some hard parts and an LSD for the tranny, too.

if you just want solid mid to low 13s and wont be using slicks, the single-chain drive might be the only major upgrade you will need.

oh yeah, the higher stall 245mm TCs wont bolt to your flexplate unless you drill 3 extra holes in the right places. so, if you get the TC, look into an aftermarket flexplate.

here is that site:
http://shop.modbug.com/displayProductDocum...7&categoryId=20

havent heard anything good or bad about this place, though. Edited February 11, 2006 by Bizz

[ponchoman49]

[quote name='razoredge' date='Feb 3 2006, 05:59 PM']
BOb - the FWD 3.0 90* Buick V6 was on market before the 3.8 believe it or not, I think it was one year, but Id have to look it up. Its in the link that 91z4me posted above. So we had the 3.0 & 3.8 until their complete retool engines the 3800 & 3300 were ready for market. Also some info that should help those not understanding why the 3.6 is not currently in every car GM has :rolleyes: The 2.8 & 3.1 were also used in Buicks and Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs because it was hard to meet the production needs just from the 38. The 38 was just available for the higher end BOP cars.

Also the 4.1 V8 Caddy engine is not the same as the RWD 4.1 Buick V6, the Caddy was a 4.1 V8, completely different and so was its reputation, at least in the FWD cars. Another interesting note on the RWD 4.1 Buick, it was the standard engine in the FWD Riv, the big one, you know, 79-85 (confused :unsure: ). The 4.1 had more HP than the 307 Olds V8 yet Americas frame of mind was "gotta have a V8" so most all Rivieras were delivered with the 307. This once again shows why and or how GM was slow to answer the call that today they are blamed for. America didnt want the call..at that time...damned if the did and damned if they didnt.

another interesting note is there was a FWD 4.1 V6 diesel...RARE ! Very rare, I also forget the details on that one.

So Bob ? Your saying the 3.9 achieved decent gas milage ? Compared to your Regal ? The EPA stats show it to be a tad low compared to competition.......I still say screw these V6's and let GM have all sizes of aluminum V8's with DOD....then Ill never have to have another V6 arguement again :P Im serious. I want 3 & 4 litre V8 added to the current lineup and forget the damn v6's. Want smooth.... you got it, want sound......you got it....V8! 90*, compact, lightweight. I predict we will see GM build smaller displacement v8's.

[post="84857"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The fwd 3.0 liter V6 actually debuted on the 1982 Olds Ciera and Buick Century in 2bbl form with 110 hp which was the same as the 3.8 2 bbl V6 of the time.

In the middle of 1980 Caddy did indeed use Buicks 4.1 liter 4 bbl 252-cid V6 in several of Caddy's full size models like the Deville/Fleetwood series. It produced 125 hp and 210 torque. The 4.1 (HT-4100) V8 you are reffering to was introduced in 1982 to replace the trouble prone 8-6-4 Caddy motor introduced in 1981! In fact in 1982 Caddy offered both the 4.1 liter 4 bbl V6 and the 4.1 liter (HT-4100 V8) which caused much confusion. The 4.1 V6 was offerd as a $165.00 credit option in place of the HT-4100 V8. The amazing part was that the V6 actually made the same hp and more torque than Caddy's HT-4100! 190 vs 210 for the V6! The 4.1 V6 was dropped in 1983 for image reasons according to Cadillac info of the time and the HT-4100 gained 10 hp and torque this year.

The 1979-80 Riv didn't come with the 4.1 liter V6. That motor was introduced in 1980. The Riv of 79-80 only came with 2 engines- the 3.8 liter 4 bbl turbo V6 and Buicks 5.7 liter 350-cid V8. It wasn't until 1981 that the 4.1 liter V6 was really into play. It was the std mill for the Riv, Electra/Park Ave, optional for the LeSabre, std on the Toronado and Olds 98, as was a credit option on all Caddys except for limos and the just introduced 1982 Cimmaron.

The 4.1 liter (252-cid) 4 bbl V6 did not have more hp than the Olds (307-cid) 4 bbl V8. Not sure were you got this idea from. The 4.1 V6 was rated at 125 hp and 205 torque in all but the Caddys which were rated at 210 torque. The olds 307 was rated at 150 hp and 240 torque in 1980, 140 hp 240 torque from 81-84 and 140 hp and 255 torque from 1985-1990 when it received the new 7A heads and revised computer. I have driven both 4.1 liter V6 Rivs and 307 Rivs and the 307 would eat the 4.1's lunch. In fact I had the chance to buy a prestine 1981 Riv with the 4.1 liter V6 but it felt too slow for my liking and my buddies 1981 Riv with the 307 always felt much quicker.

The Olds 4.3 liter V6 diesel V6 was introduced in 1982 in the fwd A-bodies but also was available in some rwd G-bodies like the Cutlass Supreme. I had a good friend that bought a 1982 Cutlass Calais which had this motor in it. The 4.3 diesel lasted up to 1985 along with the 5.7 diesel V8 when GM pulled the plug on this engine in all passenger cars.

The Regals of 1997-2004 vintage with the 3800 series II guise could easily see 30 highway mainly because they had the 3.05:1 axle ratio which kept the engine at a lower rpm than cars with the 3.29:1 ratio like the new 3900 Impala. If the 3900 Impala had the 3.05:1 gears it would be possible for that car to acheive 29-30 mpg also. Note the slightly lighter 06 Monte Carlo which had less changes than the 06 Impala has mileage ratings of 20/28 with the very same 3900/4 speed automatic and 3.29:1 gears. Also take note that the G6 GTP with it's 26 highway rating uses a 3.69:1 ratio. I think GM wanted the 3900 to be a performance option more than a fuel economy engine. If people want economy they would get the 3500 which is more than adequate.