Jump to content

Plant 36 closes today


Guest Flash

Recommended Posts

Guest Squire Tom

just like u.s.a. management !

geared right the 3800 will push a 4000 lb car at 70mph with the air on and get 30+ mpg.

1988 / 1993 / 1998 /2003 buick / olds all get the same results. only ones that didnt were 90 olds touring , 89 bonneville sse . only difference was axle ratio.

new lucerne 25 mpg with " new " motors . go figure

get 20 on my 91 but that's because they upped the final drive

to well over 3.2

wonder if any 3800's are on display ?

or does gm hate to admit they did something right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I'm with you on this. So what if it is a 20 year old engine at it's core. With incremental improvements and upgrades made over that time, it is a very respectable performer even now, in this era of renewed emphasis on high performance. Of course, that is coming to an abrupt end for most people due to gas prices, and the new emphasis is on fuel economy. Like your sig says, how fa$$$t can you afford to go?

While the 3800 isn't outstanding for it's fuel economy, again it is perfectly acceptable in the right application and tuning. I wish my 91 posted better numbers in that regard, but they are still better than my 95 Deville with the PFI 4.9 which was another outstanding engine they took out back and shot before it's time, I might add.

Perhaps most notable is the rock solid reliability of the 3800 engine, compared to many other GM offerings (Northstar anybody? Or how about the first few years of the Ecotec? Yeah, that's what I thought.)

Once again, a poor decision made for what is no discernible good reason. The General could've ridden the 3800 out for a few more years at least, considering that there isn't another mid-range engine in their stable that is better, if even as good, as far as I know.

I keep hoping that they will pull out some magical new technology that will change everything and make these seemingly stupid decision look sensible. Realistically, I don't think any such thing is in the pipeline.

I guess when us Reatta owners are still running stock 3800's in 5-10 years, and countless N*'s and the like are sitting in salvage yards (and many already are now), we can say we told you so.

KDirk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to the closing ceremony, and it was a real shame to see the 3800 tossed in the "obsolete" pile. There were a lot of Buicktown BCA members there and quite a few other GM antique cars present. They had hot dogs and a few speakers that extolled the virtues of the engine, but noone that could give a definitive Answer why they did away with it.

Iguess it is called "progress'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest spamseptictank

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Old Guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...but noone that could give a definitive Answer why they did away with it. </div></div>

You can't sell engine parts for engines that don't break down.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CL_Reatta

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Old Guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I went to the closing ceremony, and it was a real shame to see the 3800 tossed in the "obsolete" pile. There were a lot of Buicktown BCA members there and quite a few other GM antique cars present. They had hot dogs and a few speakers that extolled the virtues of the engine, but noone that could give a definitive Answer why they did away with it.

Iguess it is called "progress' </div></div>

Hope you dont mind that I used your info to update wikipedia... it still said that production was to end by the end of summer 08, so I took the liberty to fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've owned both a '96 and '97 Riviera with supercharged 3800's and currently own a '92 Riviera with a non-supercharged 3800 (currently 145k miles). In my experience, all 3 had/have run exceptionally well, just kept up on mantenance, never any problems, and have clocked around 26/28 mpg highway. What are the GM folks thinking? Just another reason why the company is in dire straits...just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kennyw

the cadillac vvt-i 3.6 is also [i am told], used in the 2008 saturn vue? They cut the hp. down from 300 to 256. I don't know how or why? Seems Gm doesn't want this on the front pages? It might hurt CAD. sales. If anyone knows this to be true, post and let me know.......ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TommyH

They got rid of the engine the same way Toyota's Scion will stop making their cars every 4-5 years. They want to seem 'with the times' and it gives the consumers that appearance. But it is only that, appearance. Sad sad sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest F14CRAZY

On the GMInsidenews.com forums this has been discussed quite a bit...

The 3.6L HF/VVT is being used in tons of GM vehicles and it's a good one. They need to concentrate on this and the 3500 is probably their other V6 that gets the most attention.

Marketing/numbers: lots of other brands including Ford, Toyota, Nissan...all have a 3.5L DOHC V6 that makes at least 260 hp. Heck Hyundai now has a 3.8L DOHC V6 that makes 275. Buick, which is supposed to be a modern luxury brand which personally I would say should be pointed straight at FWD Lexus buyers, maybes 197 hp? 3800s do indeed last forever and makes tons of torque, but someone that doesn't even really want to consider ANY domestic brand isn't going to buy it (sadly)

Size: being a 90 degree V6 its quite large compared to the Chevrolet 60 degree family (2.8L up to the 3900). Notice that late model Impalas, Grand Prix', and Lacrosse's have pretty long front overhangs compared to others.

Family: the 3400, 3500, and 3900 are currently in use and are based off each other. The 3800 only had the 3300 as a cousin which was last used in '93 I believe. New technology can be shared between them.

Neglect: GM hasn't really updated the 3800 much since Series II...in the '90s it made 205, 210(?) hp in N/A form but now makes 197...? The Series III S/C (L32) made 260 but that was mostly due to the new Gen V M90 by Eaton. Torque management made it no faster than a Series II car...the 4T65HD still couldn't take it...why did they hook it to the LS4? I'll never figure that one out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CL_Reatta

On phils last note, you will notice that on a very large majority of new cars anything below like 210 hp is considered small

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Flash;

That is a great engine!

Down here in San Diego.

Have a question for you.

What is the difference between a Hummer and a rental car?

Answer...

There are some places you won't take a Hummer, Robert

PS California gas is a real mpg killer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_Flash

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EDBSO</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Have a question for you.

What is the difference between a Hummer and a rental car?

Answer...

There are some places you won't take a Hummer.</div></div>

smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif

Good one Robert.

cool.gif

btw, I love mine so much I bought the lease. Winter driving is a blast. But so are logging trails, sand dunes, rock gardens, fording streams, even cruising Woodward. I even got 18.23 mpg once this summer... grin.gif

Take care.

cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...