Guest sintid58 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I made my first round trip back to South Dakota this weekend. The Impala has a 3800 in it and averaged on the trip 30.75 MPG over 1227 miles of mostly interstate driving. I didn't drive over 75 but the computer showed overall I averaged 68.75 MPH on the entire trip. Not too bad for a gas guzzeling noisy old engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fr. Buick Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I had an older version of the 3800 in a '94 SeSabre. With three adults plus weekend luggage, the air on, and 80 MPH through the hot desert, I got 30 MPG. And with plenty of quiet and comfort.A very good engine, I believe.Doug Cook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jstbcausd Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 I have an 93 regal with the 3800 and average 28-30 mpg depending on which way I drive to work- stoplights make all the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTX5467 Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 That mpg sounds like it's "in the ballpark" for that vehicle platform and engine combination. The last gen LeSabres had a little taller gearing so they would do a little better in highway mileage . . . taking about 82mph to get to 2000rpm on the road.I concur, not too bad for an antique-design engine with (gasp!!) pushrods rather than overhead camshafts and lots more "stuff" inside the motor. In reality, the Buick 3800 is a fully contemporary and highly advanced engine assembly which produces sufficient power AND torque to be happy "loafing" along at very modest rpm levels on the road, yet yields highly respectable fuel economy and durability AND power while doing so. Of course, this situation's been like that for close to TWENTY YEARS!Enjoy!NTX5467 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rlbleeker Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Just got back from a 2200 mile drive in our '99 Riv and got about 27 mpg overall, even with all those windy Oregon roads. I think it would do quite a bit better if you could keep it around 65 mph (1500 rpm), it cruises with almost no throttle at that speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj5794 Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 As you may very well know or recall, General Motors has stated that the 3800 will cease production in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dabecker65@gmail.com Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Shame to lose such an engine even though it is considered a technological "antique", all because it has pushrods...Had a '99 Park Avenue that averaged 32 mpg from West Palm Beach to Kingsport TN - loaded w/ 2 persons & luggage - 70-75 mph on cruise including through the mountains in E. TN.But, so it goes - years ago had a '55 Super 56R w/ 322 nailhead/Dynaflow and it was nothing for it to consistantly obtain 21-22 mpg at 65 mph. As I recall the '55 weighed in at around 4000#.We'll miss the 3800... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_OToole Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 O come on. This crowd could probably keep those 3800's on the road until 2100 ha ha ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwoods Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 I see 3800 Buicks getting 30+ mpg but my 2000 Lesabre Limited [55000 mile car] runs about 23mpg on a trip and 20-21 around town. this is done by gallons into miles not what the car shows.do i have a problem that i can fix to get better mileage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD1956 Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 When is the last time you dropped a new air cleaner in there?JD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jstbcausd Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 also check your fuel filter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTX5467 Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Unfortunately, all things sometimes have to come to an end. In the case of the Buick 3800 V-6, there are a couple of things I suspect figured into the mix.First, the tooling is probably nearing it's replacement time. From one perspective, if you've got to replace the tooling, why not use the same money and do some changes and upgrades for a new product?Second, as the Buick V-6 was originally from V-8 tooling, that means it's a 90 degree V motor, which is generally wider than the more recent (and sometimes more desireable) 60 degree V V-6s. Plus, by observation, many of the 60 degree V-6s have a more high-pitched sound (for a more Italian sound, it seems) rather than the lower frequency harmonics of the Buick 3800. BUT, in the Lucerne I rode in the other day, the engine was totally quiet.In todays narrower cars, and possibly smaller cars in the future, the additional width of the basic engine (the Buick 3800) of a 90 degree V-6 versus a 60 degree V-6 can become significant. Third, in the global marketplace, it seems that OHC engines are "in" and pushrod V-6s are "out". The Buick 3800 has already been replaced by the High Feature 3.6L DOHC V-6 in Australia a few years ago. The 3.6L V-6 is also more "exportable" to countries where pushrods went away many years ago, typically. I rememeber the kudos for the BOC Powertrain people when GM Holden decided to replace their Nissan engines with the Buick 3800s in the late 1980s, but global "times have changed", it seems.Currently, many generations of younger people have grown up paying more attention to Mitsus and Hondas and such (which have awaard-winning V-6s in them--with OHC engine architecture). Even many bargain basement imports come with OHC engines as standard equipment. These will be "future buyers", hopefully, of GM and Buick products.So . . . we end up with the Chevy 3.5L V-6 and its 3.9L variant--the High Value V-6 engines. When the Chevy 2.8L 60 degree V-6 engine family was expanded to become the Vortec 3.5L V-6, it gained enough power and economy to pretty much displace the Buick 3800 V-6 for many bragging rights . . . including fuel economy and power. The initial 3.9L V-6 had about the same power as the Chrysler 3.5L "Cammer" V-6--but using pushrods--and similar horsepower as the Buick 3800 SC V-6 (but not quite the same amount of torque).The High Feature 3.6L OHC V-6 was designed with future needs in mind. One is "direct injection" rather than "ported" injection. If done correctly, this can be a big deal! More horsepower and better fuel economy doing it, plus lower emissions. It also has fwd, awd, and rwd capabilities.I suspect that when the Buick 3800 is finally pulled from production, the engine choice with Buick will mirror those of Cadillac. High Feature V-6s and NorthStar V-8s, typically, other than having different engines for specific car lines' vehicles.Just some thoughts,NTX5467 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bkazmer Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 as you point out, the 90 degree angle resulted from being derived from a V8. It's not a naturally balanced layout for a V6 - the 60 degree has better fundamental balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dabecker65@gmail.com Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 All true gentlemen...but going from the sublime to the rediculous, imagine:248 (4.1L) or 263 (4.3L) straight 8 updated with direct injection, PCM, roller cam, tuned intake & exhaust, supercharged, laid over for vertical clearance, etc set up for transverse FWD - all in a "wide track" platform. Heck, why not a 320 that could come with wide load placards in place of bumpers...talk about "torque steer"! Oh, right - it was all about real world stuff wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTX5467 Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Don't forget about fully electronic ignition so you can delete the distributor mechanism completely, plus being sure to lay it over so the spark plugs face the front of the vehicle. And, if we're going to "dream", then let's recast the block and cylinder head in aluminum and also use fancier materials to take rotating mass out of the guts of the motor (i.e., rods, pistons, piston pins). Plus knock sensors so the compression ratio could be pretty close to 10.0 to 1 and still run existing regular fuels, AND be compatible with the higher octane rating of E85 fuels.Just some thoughts,NTX5467 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dabecker65@gmail.com Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 All great ideas - except facing the plugs to the front where you can get at them is apparently a direct contradiction to modern engineering theories - takes all the challenge out of servicing - what "fun" is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest norb Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 The best gas milage with my Park Ave was from Bowling Green Ky to Flint,573 miles, cruise set on 60 , just to check gas milage.Only one stop,but not for gas, 34.41 MPG Norb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JalopyBob Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 When my 85 Park Avenue was still alive it would consistently get 32 on the highway between Denver and Chicago. It was turned into a convertible by a semi turning left from the wrong lane. My current 1999 Olds 88 50th Anniversary set myall time high highway mileage last fall averaging 36.36 MPG at60-62 mph on the 2 lanes through Wisconsin to Lake Superior in the UP of Michigan. It gets 31-33 at normal interstate speeds.This car has 55000 miles and I hope to take it to the 300000 mile club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sintid58 Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Actually my computer showed I was getting 33+ mpg. I arrived at the mpg I stated the old fashioned way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donovan1983 Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 I guess I'll be finding out soon enough what actual mileage I get on my 97 LeSabre. Next month I'll (hopefully) be taking it on a trip to Kingman, Arizona from Denver and fuel costs are going to be the largest cost so getting 30MPG+ would simply be great and a huge savings. Around town it already seems that I'm getting a decent margin over 20MPG which is great because I'll be taking it on a 20 mile round trip commute 5 days a week here soon. I am pretty conservative with the accelerator and mostly leave the climate control off, though. I'm quite pleased with the engine in this car since it is very smooth and quiet yet offers plenty of power when needed. It's a real shame that engines like these are being phased out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest edchapman Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 My 2003 GSX is showing 27.5 MPG combined city and highwayand it also runs a 14 sec quarter mile bone stock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Cullen Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 The added drag from opening the windows is worse for your MPG than running the A/C compressor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now